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.

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

by Kevin Alfred Strom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

JESSE VENTURA ASKS UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS: Former Governor Ventura has managed to ask the obvious questions on the subject of U.S. government torture — questions that should have been asked a long time ago: “If waterboarding is okay, why don’t we let our police do it to suspects to learn what they know?… If waterboarding is okay, why didn’t we waterboard McVeigh and Nichols, the Oklahoma City bombers, to find out if there were more people involved?… We only seem to waterboard Muslims. …Have we waterboarded anybody else? Name me someone else we’ve waterboarded.”

Government nabobs and Fox News liars won’t respond truthfully, Jesse. As we biologically descend to the level of a Third World state and become ensnared in Mideastern religious wars, our government and morals and culture will increasingly resemble those of Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, and Menachem Begin. Torture included.

Mexican girls of European descent, from Wikipedia.org. Throughout Latin America, there are substantial White populations; Mexico's may be more than 10%, and in some other Latin nations it is a plurality or majority of the population.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

WHILE I WAS in a restaurant the other day with a few friends and their children, I saw another group enter the establishment and take a table nearby. It was a handsome-looking White family, a father and mother with a teenage son and daughter. I was close enough to hear parts of their conversation.

The father was almost a double for a writer I know personally, a rugged-looking brunet of medium height with piercing eyes and ruddy complexion, about 50, with a tall, fine-haired slender blonde wife perhaps ten or twelve years younger. The children were well-behaved, good-looking, and intermediate in appearance to their parents, to whom they bore an obvious family resemblance. They weren’t speaking English.

Mexican girls of European descent

Where were they from? I wondered. Listening a little more closely, I realized they were speaking Spanish. As we left the restaurant, one of the young children in my party decided to try her schoolgirl Spanish on the lady of the family at the other table. The wife was delighted to be greeted in her native tongue and spoke a bit in Spanish with the little girl in our group, then switched to flawless and almost unaccented English to talk to the rest of us. Her husband was a mechanical engineer working on a project in this country, and she was an accomplished pianist and music instructor. Both spoke three languages, French being the third.

I eventually asked where they hailed from. The answer was Mexico, where they were born and where they had lived almost all their lives. They were Mexicans. They were Mexicans of entirely European descent. They were Hispanics. And in those facts there are two lessons.

Chilean presidential candidates, 2005

The first lesson is that using the term “Hispanic” for the Mestizos who are crossing our southern marches is inappropriate. The term Hispanic, strictly speaking, should be used only to refer to people of Iberian descent — like this family. Even as it is it misused today, the word “Hispanic” is racially ambiguous. It can refer to a Spanish-speaking Black — or a totally European person from Spain or from the substantial Spanish-speaking White populations of Latin America. We should prefer racial terms when we’re talking about race. That’s why we should, like Latin Americans themselves, say “Mestizo” when referring to those of mixed European and Amerindian descent, and “Amerindian” or, better yet, a proper tribal or national name when referring to Amerindians. (Often, except when it causes misunderstandings, it’s good to call people what they call themselves. It might be a good thing if the Nation of Aztlan nationalists forged a new name for their people, replacing the broad-brush words “Hispanic” or “Mexican” that have almost no biological meaning. “American,” by the way, is rapidly becoming meaningless too.) Race is what matters. And that brings us to the second lesson illustrated by my restaurant encounter.

A rugby match with a Uruguayan team (in blue) playing a British team

The accomplished and cultured White family from Mexico I met is no more likely than I am to join MS-13 or chop someone’s head off with a machete. This family is not a threat to our culture — in fact, it would not surprise me if they were more imbued with Western culture than 95 per cent. of Americans and Europeans. And this family, most important of all, is not a threat to our gene pool. They are as European as any of us, they are indistinguishable from us, and their offspring could intermarry with ours and our future generations would continue as ever, their destiny undimmed. And all of this would remain true no matter what papers they had or didn’t have in their wallets. It would remain true even if these engineers and piano virtuosi came here illegally. What really matters isn’t laws or papers or even geography. It’s race. It’s genes. And we can never have sane laws or sane immigration policies until we understand that fact.

The anti-immigration “conservatives” on Fox News are always screaming about how they’re “not racists” and how “it’s not about race, it’s about obeying the law.” Well, if it’s about “the law,” what are they going to say when Congress simply legalizes every illegal immigrant? They won’t be able to say a thing. The conservatives are simply wrong. In fact, they’re more than wrong — they’re lying. It is about race.

*  *  *

Based on the American Dissident Voices broadcast of June 5, 2005

I think it’s time for Britons to carefully review my maxim on rulers.

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.

“THE BEAST AS SAINT” IN SLOVAK: The Slovak-language Web site Hlavu Hore has recently translated my article on “Martin Luther” King and published it on their Web site. Thanks from me for spreading the word about one of the most misrepresented figures in modern history!

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.

I’M OFTEN MISQUOTED: Two quotes of mine are often given incorrectly, the first because of imprecise remembrance of a memorable idea, and the second because of a purposely or inadvertently sloppy journalist reporting on my historic trial.

The first is my maxim on the rulers of society, which exists online and in print in a dozen different variations, some of them probably more elegant than my original.

What I said was: “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?”

The second common misquotation is of my statement on racial supremacism when I was on trial in 2007 (at which trial I was acquitted of all charges). The press had repeatedly accused of me being a “White supremacist,” a totally false claim since I oppose all forms of racial supremacism (one race ruling over or dominating another and denying the other’s self-determination and freedom).

The papers and those who parrot them had me saying “I’m no more a White supremacist than the Dalai Lama,” a nonsensical statement since no one claims the Dalai Lama is White, much less a White supremacist.

What I actually said was this: “I’m no more a White supremacist than the Dalai Lama is a Tibetan supremacist. He loves his people too.”

Kevin Alfred Strom today

Kevin Alfred Strom is absolutely innocent of any crime against children or anyone else. He has paid a heavy price for his advocacy of self-determination for his people.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

given at Federal District Court, Charlottesville, Virginia on April 21, 2008; with annotations

MY NAME is Kevin Alfred Strom. I have been in solitary confinement for sixteen months. Circumstances and strategic considerations have kept me silent until now. But I have sworn to tell the whole truth, so I ask the court to grant me now perhaps one minute for every month I have been imprisoned.

All along I’ve told the truth to everyone — investigators, family members, this court, my closest friends — about this case, even when that truth was embarrassing to me or easily misconstrued to be used against me.

Let me tell you a little about my background. For some 20 years, I worked as a broadcast engineer. For three years, until I moved to Virginia in 2001, I was the local chapter leader of the Family Support Network, a parenting group. I’m a writer, a publisher, an editor, a broadcaster — and an activist for social change who’s taken on some powerful interest groups, armed only with a microphone and a pen. But more than anything else, I’m a father.

The greatest title of honor I’ve ever been given is “Daddy.”

My Children

My son Oliver[1] is fifteen, an honor student just embarking on his high school years and all the changes that implies.

My daughter Vita is eleven, also an honor student and getting set to graduate to middle school.

My younger son Alfred is thirteen and severely autistic. He has made some progress at a special school for autistic children, but in many ways he lives in his own inner world. Victims of autism have trouble relating to people, but often get very attached to one person in their lives. In Alfred’s case, that person is me.

[1] (All minors named here have been given alternate names to protect their identities.)

Some years ago, I lived in Virginia while my ex-wife, the children’s mother, lived in Minnesota. I had to bear all the driving duties and all the costs to maintain my parenting time under joint custody. My parenting time was split into four periods every year.

My children and I

I drove 1,250 miles to pick up the children, another 1,250 miles back home for my time with them, another 1,250 miles to drop them off, and then 1,250 miles back home again. And that’s for one trip. Depending on school or other schedules, sometimes the driving time was longer than the time at home with them. I was making that trip between here and Minnesota sixteen times a year. I did that for six years. It was worth every bit of effort. I love my children more than my own soul.

Your honor, I am not a pedophile. I am the farthest thing imaginable from a sexual pervert of any kind. I am in fact the precise opposite of the way I have been characterized in this case. And I have never sought out, purchased, enjoyed, or wanted child pornography of any kind.

Those who would in reality or fantasy violate the innocence of a child disgust me. They are monsters, aberrations, contra naturam, from whom the innocent need to be protected.

I am not a hateful person, your honor, but I do revile the foul deeds of pedophiles and child pornographers. In my public and private life I have exposed and condemned them, and opposed the “normalization” of pedophilia now being pushed in some psychological circles.

Sex and Love

I regard human sexuality not as a casual pleasure, nor as something dirty, but rather as something sacred, something holy. It is the means by which new souls are brought into the universe. This love of our hearts and our bodies connects us to — actually physically connects us to — the mysterious beginnings of all life, and to our as yet unknown destiny. It is not to be spoken of lightly.

To me, sex, love, and family form a kind of natural trinity which ought never to be sundered. I have long instinctively felt this way.

I believe in love. In my sexual life, I have been what one of my friends calls “an absolute straight arrow.” In high school, some called me a “Puritan” because I refused to participate in the alcohol, recreational drugs, and recreational sex which were and are so common. And I’ve remained true to my principles.

When the fates have blessed me with a sweetheart, I have always been faithful to her, always and absolutely. I have loved imperfectly and made innumerable mistakes, but I have loved with all my heart. And the number of sweethearts I have had in 51 years of life can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Art and Beauty

Your honor, before it was all taken from me, my home was filled with fine art: reproductions of the paintings of Maxfield Parrish, John William Waterhouse, William Bouguereau; the sculptures of Rodin, Houdon, St. Gaudens, Hiram Powers; and many others. I’m also a photographer and a graphic artist myself in my role as editor. And I operate a highly regarded online art gallery.

Cupid and Psyche - an example of the art collected and displayed by Kevin Alfred Strom

I believe one of the greatest purposes of high art is to depict the human form as an ideal of beauty and nobility. I believe that one of the greatest tragedies of modern art is that it has abandoned the Classical reverence for our natural form which, our ancestors believed and so do I, partakes of the Divine.

I believe that whenever the human body is portrayed, that portrayal should embody respect, nobility, beauty, and dignity — never crudity, lasciviousness, or degradation; even, or perhaps especially, when the erotic is part of that portrayal.

I do not like pornography. When in my life I have sought out the erotic, I have never sought the gross, the crude, the pornographic.

I’d like to live in a society in which no one wanted pornography of any kind. And I firmly believe that a revival of the Classical nude in art, in the exquisite tradition that culminated near the end of the 19th century, would go a very long way toward making all kinds of pornography disappear.

How then did I come here before you?

The Erotic and the Pornographic

Now, I have enjoyed erotic — but not pornographic — photography depicting beautiful young women. And my imprecisely-chosen words and speculations[2] about those pictures have been used against me. But the erotic photographs I actually sought out, on sites like BodyInMind.com, have nothing to do with these charges — except to the extent that my honest discussion of enjoying pictures of “beautiful young girls” (all of them on sites where the models are certified to be over eighteen) and words to that effect have been edited and twisted beyond recognition in order to incriminate me.

[2] (Speculations encouraged by cynical JTTF interrogators and a vengeful ex-spouse who surreptitiously recorded a marriage counseling session, both of whom later edited the recordings to remove the relevant context.)

In the presentencing report you will note that the number of images involved in this “crime” is fewer than ten. I was not even allowed to see these images, and then only briefly, until I was escorted to the FBI evidence room on August 22, 2007, in the eighth month of my imprisonment. At that time I and my lead attorney were able to view the files along with their associated metadata, showing size, date of last modification, and source, among other things.[3] Some of them are on my hard drive as a result of my actions and some are not. They break down as follows:

[3] (Except for one file downloaded and saved by my wife, which was an artistic photograph of a young woman wearing an angel costume which by no stretch of the imagination could be called pornographic, I had never seen any of these images before that date. They had all been deleted by me unseen when a picture forum was spammed, or were just unwanted and never-saved garbage from popup ads or spam, and were “recovered” by FBI/JTTF technicians.)

Only one of the charged files is even saved to the hard drive. All the others were deleted or never saved and no one (except a forensic investigator) could ever view them.

That one saved file was not saved by me. It was saved on a portion of the hard drive reserved for backups made automatically of my wife Elisha’s computer, and the file’s metadata confirm that it was in fact downloaded originally by her.

Responsibility

More than half of the remaining charged files have “last modified” dates after July 14, 2006 — the day I left my home to save my life and my children’s lives from Elisha’s violence. I never had access to that computer again after that date. I do not know exactly what was done to download or alter those files after that July 14, but one thing is sure: whoever did so was not I.[4]

By studying the metadata, I was able to determine that I was responsible for the presence of the tiny number of remaining files. Their source data shows that they came from an online forum I remember visiting several years ago. It’s a photography forum devoted to beautiful portraits, having nothing to do with sex or even nudity. Many wonderful, creative photos have been posted there. In fact, the rules of the forum prohibit the posting of any kind of pornography there. But, practically speaking, anyone can post anything there — and it will stay there until a moderator gets around to removing it.

[4] (It’s worth noting that only two or three of the charged files are in fact child pornography, and many are not even pornography at all. One was obviously a banner ad for an adult porn site, disgusting but not illegal, which prosecutors doubtlessly included because of the revolting and lurid text (“Teen Rape!”) plastered across the ad, which they falsely characterized as the “file name” in the indictment. The real file name was numeric and would not have made the desired impression on the public or the members of the grand jury.)

The last time I visited the forum it was flooded with spam promoting commercial pornography sites, with “sample” images some of which showed models that were children. Though the spammers used various tricks to evade the letter of the law (by blurring out genitals, for example), these pictures nevertheless were by turns sleazy, disgusting, and tragic. After seeing the first few images of the many in the group, I deleted them all, mostly sight unseen. Every image, of course, even the ones I never saw, left its trace on the hard drive. I never returned to the forum again. These files I “possessed” I possessed unwillingly.

Faith in God - an example of the art collected and displayed by Kevin Alfred Strom

Wanted and Unwanted; Beauty and Ugliness

To get a realistic picture of this affair, you must also comprehend the scale involved. I am a heavy user of computer images, both professionally and personally. There are more than 40,000 image files on my computer related to my journalism work alone. There are tens of thousands of family and Nature photographs — it’s nothing for me to take 100 in a single day — and thousands of fine art scans and images, book illustrations, and much more. I would estimate that the number of image files on that computer at more than 100,000; so many that I had to add several additional hard drives to the system.

Clearly, your honor, I know how to seek out, collect, and save huge numbers of the images I’m really interested in.

Our lawmakers included something called the Affirmative Defense in the child pornography statutes. It states that if the files in question are deleted, and there are three or fewer, there can be no prosecution.[5] It’s designed to protect inadvertent possessors from prosecution, prison time, and the false characterization of being labeled a “sex offender” for life. But prosecutors, even in the flimsiest cases, can just inflate the number of charged files to over three even if the files don’t meet the criteria, and thereby evade the intent of the Affirmative Defense. And in these days of high speed Internet connections and Web sites that commonly have 50 or hundreds of images on their opening pages, each of which leaves its traces on your hard drive instantly, before it is even seen — and even if it isn’t seen — I venture to suggest that the Affirmative Defense no longer applies to anyone, even the most inadvertent. Its intent was, clearly, to apply in cases precisely like this one.

[5] (There are many cases on the record in which prosecutors refused to prosecute even when thousands of the most horrifying and abusive pornographic images of children were found on someone’s computer — refused for the simple and quite valid reason that the person in question did not have exclusive access to said computer. I never had exclusive access to the computer in question in my case, and had no access whatever to it after July 14, 2006. I leave it to the reader to decide why I was treated differently.)

The Essential Element in the Case

In my work as a writer and publisher, I have taken on controversial issues — foreign adventurism by the Bush administration, abuse of the fundamental rights of European-Americans, and many more — and made powerful enemies in high places. I have been a strong critic of the loss of our liberties and the rise of the security/surveillance state since 9/11.

In particular, I have published and written dozens of exposés of the illegitimate and politically-motivated acts of the so-called “Joint Terrorism Task Force,” or JTTF, now operating within the U.S. Justice Department.

In early 2004, in my role as journalist, I was covering a court hearing in Atlanta in which the JTTF was involved in persecuting an innocent patriot named Chester Doles. After the hearing I was approached by JTTF Special Agent Joe Thompson, who, interestingly, knew me though I did not know him. Thompson threatened me, saying loudly enough for the entire room to hear (and pointing directly at me): “Strom, you’re next!”[6]

The JTTF even intervened in an attempt — successful, so far — to prevent me from getting redress in the Greene County courts for the theft of virtually all of my possessions by my wife Elisha and for her violent attacks upon me.

[6] (The article I wrote at the time is widely available on the Internet (such as at http://tinyurl.com/strom-jttf) and includes a description of the threat by Thompson. It was published more than two years before my current case began.)

When this case began, who was it who raided my home with a SWAT-like team of armored thugs and terrorized my family? Was it the FBI’s Crimes Against Children unit? — or another agency devoted to protecting children? No indeed. It was the Joint Terrorism Task Force.[7]

[7]( It is worthwhile to consider that, according to FBI spokesmen quoted recently in USA Today and the Washington Post (see http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-07-child-porn-computers_n.htm and http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-15-childporn-side_n.htm), there are more than 624,000 active traders and producers of child pornography in the United States who have been conclusively identified by their Internet addresses and IDs — more than 17,000 are in Virginia alone. And these figures are based on a study of only one of the many file-sharing networks in use today. If cases reaching the press are any indication, these are largely people with thousands or tens of thousands of the most horrifying images imaginable, many of which graphically depict violent abuse of little children, even toddlers and infants. One investigator stated he had to go to counseling after seeing some of these pictures. Law enforcement spokesmen state that they only have the resources to go after a minuscule percentage of such criminals, so they have to concentrate their efforts and only prosecute the very worst offenders. Arnold Bell, head of the FBI’s Innocent Images Unit, said to USA Today: “There aren’t enough cops in the world to pursue every lead, so the FBI focuses on cases in which kids may be located and rescued.” It does appear that a very different set of standards was applied by the JTTF in this case.)

Who was it at the prosecution table, trying to falsely convict me of child sexual abuse and witness tampering when I was totally innocent — when in fact the charges were so ludicrous they were thrown out of court? And who is sitting at the prosecution table today? None other than an agent of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

A small corner of my home in 1999, before I met Elisha, showing a tiny sample of the possessions taken

Attempted Destruction of a Life

When I left my home to protect myself from my wife’s anger and violence, I took with me only what I could carry under my arms. Elisha refused to allow me to retrieve any of my possessions. She sold them openly, then incinerated what she didn’t keep in a bonfire that burned for two days. I lost everything I owned; a lifetime of books, art, heirlooms, clothes, radio equipment, letters, personal records, mementos, and even my children’s possessions.

In November 2006 I went to the courts in Greene County to obtain redress for that unprecedented theft and for the violence committed against me. But I was prevented from pursuing my cases and in fact found myself charged with serious crimes[8] for doing so. Who was it who showed up at the Greene County courthouse, literally arm-in-arm with Elisha, illegitimately crossing the bar and whispering secretly to the judge and Commonwealth’s Attorney? An agent of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

[8] (For the “crimes” of filing a lawsuit demanding return of my property, and for talking with a local magistrate about Elisha’s violent attacks on me, I found myself facing federal charges of “witness tampering” and “obstruction of justice” which alone could have netted me 20 years in prison.)

A small part of the radio/studio equipment stolen from me

My troubled and estranged wife Elisha has committed many acts of violence against me. I was an abused spouse. She has threatened to kill me, and I have documentation[9] of those threats. She has used threats and coercion to force me to give her money and property and to sign documents under duress. She is both dangerous and delusional.

[9] (For one example, see documentation of her clearly audible physical aggression, anger, and threats toward me captured when she attacked me during a recording session for my radio program in 2006, downloadable at http://documents.iqradio.org/. The source of her rage in this case was my suggestion that she seek additional help for her anger problem.)

She has accused me of having sexual liaisons with my ex-wife, with professional colleagues, with correspondents from halfway across the continent whom I’ve never met, with two teenage musicians whose work I’ve promoted, with my stepdaughter, with my stepdaughter’s friends, with cashiers at the local grocery store, with neighbors — I literally cannot remember them all. My denials engendered more accusations, more anger, more violence. At Elisha’s hands I’ve suffered innumerable bruises, cuts, including a laceration that sent me to the hospital to get eight stitches, and permanent damage to my vision. My ill-advised attempts to placate and appease her[10] made things even worse.

Report certifying that I am not a pedophile

The Motivation

Let me state for your honor and the record that I have never touched Elisha or any other person in anger in my entire adult life; and let me further state that my behavior and intentions toward all of these girls and women was absolutely proper at all times.

[10] (Including agreeing in writing to see a counselor, an act which has been wildly misinterpreted by the press and others: Though still trying to placate Elisha and prevent her from carrying out her violent and other threats, I changed the wording of the document she demanded I sign to make it clear that I was not admitting to pedophilia or anything of the sort. The counselor was one I was already seeing in order to deal with the horrific situation I found myself in — and I, not being a pedophile, knew that the counselor would if he was honest declare me free of that perversion, as he in fact has done. I am probably the only man within a hundred of miles of Charlottesville who has been officially declared not to be a pedophile. A copy of the counselor’s letter is also available at http://documents.iqradio.org/.)

When I finally stopped acceding to Elisha’s demands for submission, money, and property, she followed through on her threats to make her false allegations public in order to, as she put it, “ruin” me. She told me again and again that, unless I gave her large sums of money, paid for thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic and augmentation surgery for her, and gave her my property including a quitclaim deed to the house — that unless I did what she demanded I would never work in my chosen field again, and that I would be permanently separated from my beloved children, saying of them explicitly “When I get through with you, you’ll never see those f—-ing brats again.”

The Children Spoke the Truth

My stepdaughter and a friend of hers were interviewed by child welfare authorities as a result of Elisha’s false claims, and despite whatever pressures there may have been, they told the truth. I was cleared. Though totally cleared by the local authorities, I still found myself falsely charged and accused by prosecutors and the JTTF with “sexual enticement of a minor,” charges which could have put me in prison for the rest of my natural life, and yet charges so absurd[11] that I made history in this very courtroom when, for the first time in this district, federal charges were thrown out as nonsense on their very face without the defense having to utter a word. The preposterous “witness tampering” charges were also thrown out at the same time.

[11] (The “enticement” included such “criminal” acts as 1) attending the same county fair as a young family friend (though making no contact and totally unaware of the other’s presence), 2) “being seen” driving on a road a half mile from the friend’s home, 3) sending a totally non-sexual and non-romantic birthday card to the family friend, 4) sending a DVD of a G-rated film to the friend’s entire family as a Christmas present (after receiving presents from them earlier), and 5) holding an umbrella for her in a driving rainstorm.)

Violence and Threats

Even after my arrest, Elisha’s violence and threats continued. I continue to fear for my family and myself. Elisha has been leafleting the neighborhoods where my stepfather and family live and work, making lurid and false, yet alarming statements about me — including accusing me of the crimes of which I have been acquitted — which could seriously impact the lives of my family members.

Last May 9th Elisha lashed out with gunfire in a road rage incident, discharging a firearm in a residential neighborhood — a crime. Yet the JTTF came to the rescue, falsely characterizing Elisha as the “victim” in the “witness tampering” case against me, and seizing jurisdiction from the local authorities[12] so the government’s star perjurer would not be prosecuted — as she most certainly would have been otherwise.

Just a few weeks ago, Elisha openly and publicly called for my death in an interview she gave to the press right outside the doors of this courtroom.

[12] (Copies of the police reports on this incident are also available at http://documents.iqradio.org/.)

A Most Telling Fact

And let me clarify one thing, your honor; a very important thing. Elisha, no matter what her jealousies and hatreds may be, knows I am not a pedophile. Just two weeks after the day she claims she confronted me on that issue, October 17, 2005 — the date which figured in my trial and the date her violence sent me to the hospital — Elisha allowed me to take her nine-year-old daughter, by myself and with no other adult present, to pick up my autistic son and take them on a three-day trip to the beach for my son’s eleventh birthday.

And she also allowed me to take her daughter, my stepdaughter, to school and shopping on dozens of unaccompanied trips between that October 17 and the day I fled our home nine months later.

A picture I made for my daughter while in solitary confinement

Your honor, I know that judges have great powers to order dispositions of their cases, and that power has increased of late. Powers may exist which have seldom or never been exercised, and even where there is no power to order, the ability to recommend still exists.

I genuinely fear that Elisha, or those she may incite, may harm me or my family. Please take steps so that such persons may not obtain my street address from any publicly available database. I am not a sex offender in any meaningful sense of that term, nor a felon.

Please order or recommend that upon my release there be no restrictions placed upon me regarding travel with my children or attendance at their classes or school or other events.[13]

[13] (The judge did so order.)

My son and I on a hike in the mountains

Please make my family whole again as soon as possible. In considering my fate, please also consider the fate of the real victims in this case:

My 77-year-old mother and my stepfather who are taking care of my children in my absence; they have been a hero and heroine beyond my capacity to thank them.

My son Oliver, strong and stoic at 15, but also shy and sensitive, who chokes up from the pain sometimes.

My daughter Vita, who is eleven and at the stage of life when she needs her Daddy most. She is so bright, so open-hearted, so innocent, so vulnerable. She does science projects and learns elementary Latin — but still sleeps with a teddy bear. She cries for her Daddy, and I keep telling her I’ll be home as soon as I can.

My autistic son Alfred, who doesn’t understand — isn’t capable of understanding — what has happened to his Dad. He only knows that he hasn’t seen me for a very, very long time. Let me quote from his latest school reports: “His irritability and impatience typically lead to tantrums accompanied by property destruction, self-abuse, and aggression. He seems remorseful once he has calmed down, often crying for his father and repeatedly saying ‘I’m sorry’ and ‘I’m sad.’ There has been an increase in elopement. He often runs to the van[14] and on occasion has put the van in gear. He frequently requests to look at pictures of his father and hear ‘Daddy’s letters.’ …Alfred perseverates about his father daily[15]. He calls out for ‘Daddy’ and asks to call Daddy on the phone. He often reassures himself ‘You’ll see your Daddy again.’ At times he will tantrum and engage in self-abuse.”

[14] (I have a van also, which Alfred loves to ride in.)

[15] (476 days so far.)

Your honor, I know I have spoken longer than is usual in such cases — but this case is anything but usual. I believe that I have now fulfilled my oath to tell the whole truth. I deeply appreciate your listening. Thank you.

*   *   *

The judge expressed himself after my statement, indicating that based on the reports he had read, including the interviews with my stepdaughter and her friend, that he would have preferred me to have pled Not Guilty to all charges. As a loving father, I could not do that: The prosecutor “piled on” charges — six counts for one alleged violation of law. I would have had to be acquitted six times in a row to go home to my children — and the government could lose four or five times in a row and still succeed in imprisoning me for decades if one or two counts “stuck” as they could easily do in a politically- and emotionally-charged case like this one, whatever the facts. The ability to “pile on” charges for one alleged offense is, in my opinion, a crime itself. It gives the government the near-absolute power to intimidate innocent people — especially innocent people with children they love — into pleading guilty to one or two counts. I chose to return to my children this summer instead of decades after they were grown, if ever. That’s the choice I had to make, and I made it.

The judge could have sentenced me to ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. I was released about four months after my hearing, close to the minimum sentence within his discretion. No fine was imposed.

The time for truth-telling has come, and the world will be hearing from me again.

*   *   *

Further information on this case can be found in the ‘About’ section of this Web site.

In recent months, additional evidence of the character of the prosecution’s only witness (Elisha Strom) and her relationship with the lead investigator in the case has come to light. The latest information on her continuing record of immoral and psychotic behavior can be found in the article Perjurer Arrested Yet Again and its links.

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.