American Dissident Voices: Liberty

Ron_PaulAmerican Dissident Voices broadcast of February 1, 2014

by Kevin Alfred Strom

LIBERTARIANISM is a tempting philosophy for White Americans who are disgusted by what their government has become. Libertarians vary somewhat in their perspectives, but their point of view can be summarized in Henry David Thoreau’s statement that “government is best which governs least.”(ILLUSTRATION: Because he wanted to cut the monster in Washington down to size, Ron Paul’s libertarian ideas were supported by many White Americans. But is “smaller government” really the answer?)

I confess I have a great deal of sympathy with that idea. It is in my nature, and I think in the nature of many White people, to value freedom highly. We want to be able to reason things out for ourselves — what is right, what is wrong; what is the purpose of our lives; how we should spend our time; how we should allocate our wealth and goods; and with whom we choose to associate — and not associate.

People of quality don’t want or need an overlord, or a policeman on every corner, to tell us what to do or not to do. We don’t want or need an all-encompassing spy system to listen in on every conversation, or take satellite pictures of every living room and bedroom, to make sure we are “safe” from largely imaginary terrorists. We don’t want killer drones run remotely by politicians and bureaucrats armed with a “kill list” of their own devising. We don’t want or need ten million regulations telling us how to run our business affairs and potentially sending us to jail if we fail to hire enough Eskimos or Hottentots, or forget to dot the “i” in paragraph C3 of form 8942.

We admire the founders of the USA, who set strict limits on what their new government could and could not do, and enshrined the rights of the people as inviolate. We don’t admire the lawyers and the judges who have figured out thousands of “legal” tricks and weasel words to get around those limitations — and who have built the most powerful and intrusive state apparatus since the one set up by Uncle Joe Stalin.

We acknowledge — and shudder when we do so — that, in just the last 100 years, governments have killed their own people on massive scale, a scale that dwarfs the death toll from every war fought during that same century. More than 40 million died in wars, but the Communists in the Jewish-dominated Soviet Union killed some 4 million Russians in 1921 and 1922 alone, purposely starved 8 million Ukrainians in 1932, and conservative estimates are that politically-motivated executions topped 40 million Russians before Stalin’s death in 1953. During World War I, the Ottoman Turks starved more than a million of their Armenian citizens. After World War 2, at least two million German civilians were slaughtered, and at least a 200,000 Germans died in Allied concentration camps set up by Eisenhower. Another two million White people, ethnic Germans, Russians, and other nationalities who had fled Communism during the war, were killed when Eisenhower “repatriated” them by force to the Soviet Union. Mao’s Chinese Communist government killed a million Tibetans under its rule, and also killed some 30 million of its own people.

It’s a sorry record, and I can understand why some people turn away in disgust at the very idea of government. I can understand why the idea of absolute individual autonomy appeals to them — as I survey the sorry and bloody record of America’s recent history, it even appeals to me.

I can understand why the great American writer and thinker Albert Jay Nock titled one of his books Our Enemy, the State. In that book, Nock — who once argued, by the way, that Jews were basically incompatible with European civilization — brought out the fact that society and the state are two different things. He said that the state, created to serve society, often ends up opposing it — opposing the very society it is supposed to serve. It ends up as the enemy of the people. The state acts like a malignant tumor, with its own agenda and its own interests, often diametrically opposed to the body of people who first brought it into being. That’s certainly what’s happening in America and the West generally right now: State power is being systematically used to erase people of European descent from the face of the Earth, via mass immigration, wholesale replacement, and the promotion of racial mixing. The “state as the enemy of the people” can’t get much worse than that.

So perhaps we should embrace the anarcho-libertarian ideal. Perhaps we should even go further than Thoreau’s “that government is best which governs least” and follow him all the way to what he also said, though it’s seldom quoted — “that government is best which governs not at all.”

Or perhaps we should take the more moderate position of libertarians like Ron Paul or the many patriots who just want us to restore the Constitution and the much more limited government that prevailed in the Old America.

First let’s dispense with the anarcho-libertarian idea. It’s difficult to imagine a more impractical and ephemeral way of life for any nation. In fact, anarchism virtually dispenses with the very idea of a nation, and presumes that voluntary interactions among free men and women will result in a kind of spontaneous order in which all human needs will be taken care of without any need for force or compulsion.

As appealing as this idea is to those living under the yoke of the Washington regime, it utterly ignores the biological and psychological nature of human beings. It ignores the fact that humans naturally organize themselves along biological lines — racial lines — and that the different peoples thus delineated have different, and often clashing, interests. It ignores the fact that, whether organized into racial groups or into gangs of warlords looking for plunder, human groups will arm themselves and fight for territory and resources, fight to establish hegemony or to break free of oppression. It ignores the essentially territorial and warlike nature of man. And it ignores the biological, tribal, racial nature of man.

Weapons exist. Men with an inclination to organize themselves and use those weapons to get what they want exist. Even if we are living in anarcho-capitalist Utopia, there exist other powerful states which may covet our territory and note our stateless weakness and invade us. History shows that these things are a part of human nature and they have happened countless times — and there is no reason to suppose they will not happen to us. Therefore it is a necessity for us to organize ourselves for the common defense, for our young men to train themselves and stand ready to put their lives at risk to defend their people, for a justice system to be put in place so that the deranged and the criminal within our own borders can be made harmless — and for all of us to contribute to those efforts.

In other words, we need a state — we need a government. Some things must be done as a community, or we will surely perish. Without a state, we will be like the stateless Armenians ruled by the Ottoman Empire, helpless before the sword of those who hate us.

* * *

But what about severely limiting the power of the state, so that it cannot become oppressive and cannot intrude into too many spheres of life? What about the moderately libertarian idea of returning America to constitutional, limited government?

This idea is very appealing indeed. I’d estimate that fully 90 per cent. of what the regime in Washington does is harmful or stupid, and, judged by the standard of the Constitution, illegal too. Practically all of the anti-White legislation imposed by the regime, like “Affirmative Action” and forced association under the guise of “civil rights,” falls into the illegal category and so would be swept away by a restoration of the Constitution. Wouldn’t it be great to be rid of almost everything the beast on the Potomac is doing to kill us? And we wouldn’t even have to mention race at all!

And I admit that the founders who wrote the Constitution intended for America to be an all-White nation (though the current crop of Constitutionalists deny or fail to mention this). When the Founders said the new government was instituted to secure the blessings of liberty for their posterity, they meant by that word their lineal descendants and kin — fellow White men and women — and no one else. They made that clear when they defined citizenship, in the Naturalization Act of 1790, as applying only to those of European descent — a law which remained on the books until 1952. Jefferson himself authored a law outlawing racial mixing in the state of Virginia, so we know where he stood on the issue. And many early American leaders supported the American Colonization Society, the purpose of which was to free the Blacks and remove them from our society by repatriating them to Africa. In fact, until the administration of the second Roosevelt, the view that America was a White nation was basically the norm among American citizens and leaders.

But returning to the original limited government interpretation of the Constitution isn’t going to save us. It isn’t likely to happen, either, in the increasingly Third World feeding and breeding zone that America has become.

The reasons are these: The nature and quality of a society is totally dependent on the men and women who make it up. The laws and constitution of that society matter to some degree, but nowhere near as much as the inner nature of the people who comprise it. And the people who make up American society have changed radically since 1789.

When America granted independence to the Philippines, we handed them a constitution closely modeled on the American Constitution. But that didn’t make Philippine society resemble American society of that time in any significant way. Theirs was basically a Mestizo society, riddled from the beginning with extensive corruption — and within a few years their constitution was basically being ignored and their president was ruling by decree.

When the African country of Liberia was set up by the American Colonization Society, it was also given a constitution modeled on ours. But you might as well have handed the American Constitution to a troop of baboons for all the good it did. Liberia was and continues to be a sinkhole of primitivism, poverty, chaos, corruption, disease, and death. The Americanized constitution mattered not a bit.

The American Constitution was created by a specific group of people, and in many ways it worked for a time because it was particularly well suited to the kind of people who inhabited this country. Early America was a cultural and genetic colony of Europe, and its citizens, all Europeans, were in addition selected to be on the average more adventurous, courageous, and freedom-loving than their compatriots who stayed safely at home. These were men and women who were seeking a home where they could be free of the dessicated old aristocracy, where they could clear new land, fight off savages, and build a whole new world for themselves. They didn’t appreciate it when an effete and banker-ridden aristocracy started telling them what to do from 4,000 miles away — and many of them determined to be free or die in the attempt. It was men like that who brought the Constitution and its concept of limited government into being. And, with many exceptions, they made it work pretty well for a century and a half.

But late in the 19th century, the Jews, a very different people, started arriving on our shores in significant numbers. They weren’t interested in clearing the land. They weren’t interested in freedom. They were interested in ownership, in control. They were interested in stock exchange and banking tricks to take without effort what others had created over many decades. They were interested in dominance through control of our mass media. They were interested in power. Most of all, they didn’t melt and assimilate into the White American population as the other immigrant groups of Europeans had. Deep down, they didn’t consider themselves European, though they had sojourned in Europe for centuries. They were interested in what was best for them, even if it wasn’t what was best for us. They didn’t trust us and wanted to control us. And to do that, they needed to dominate our government, and break the chains of the Constitution in order to make that government more powerful.

The Jews didn’t think it was in their best interest for America to be a White nation, so one of their priorities was to overturn all the laws which protected the borders of the United States, and all the laws which protected the racial integrity of the United States. And this they have done, flooding the country with so many millions of Third Worlders and encouraging racial mixing to such an extent that today more non-White babies are being born than White babies in this country, a sure sign of the permanent racial change to come.

Do you think that the increasingly disunited and darkening population of what is still called the “United States of America” could do much better than the Filipinos and Liberians with a “restored” constitution? Do you think they would have even the slightest interest in such an idea in the first place, especially considering that the illegitimate power of the regime in Washington is what is allowing them in and subsidizing them to the tune of billions of dollars?

No, that’s a pipe dream. There will be no “restoration of the Constitution.” None of that is going to happen. Ever.

Even if we just had to consider the White American population, “restoring the Constitution” would still be a non-starter. More than two generations have passed since something resembling limited government existed in this country. Millions of White Americans have become dependent on government jobs and assistance during those years. They’ve become attached to the big government teat and are willing to endorse whatever malicious nonsense issues forth from Washington, from homosexuality to racial mixing and the genocide of their own people, just because they know where their monthly check comes from and nothing — nothing — is more important than that.

And there’s yet another reason that “restoring the Constitution” won’t work. It’s been said truthfully that there is no substitute for honorable men. No matter what political system you establish, even if it is far less than optimal — if it is run by honorable men, loyal to their people, who are also capable and responsible, that system will work as well as it possibly can. And even if you have the most perfect political system imaginable, designed for us by beneficent and omniscient angels — if it is run by dishonorable, corrupt men, it will be an imposture and a disaster.

Our “leaders” in America today are not honorable men. They are men who have been put in place by a system loyal to money and the men who have it — and in America, no one has more money than the Jews. These are not men who will give up power on principle. They have no principles.

The politicians and the judges who have twisted the words of the Constitution until it means almost precisely the opposite of what it was intended to mean are not going to stand idly by while their racket is being disassembled and scrapped. They will order their law enforcement agencies to arrest and prosecute anyone who comes too close to shutting down their game. They will use every dirty trick in the book to put an end to anyone who really tries. There’s going to be no serious limitation on state power in this country, despite all the phony rhetoric of conservatives to the contrary. State power is only going to grow, because the Jews and the other super-rich who are allied with them, and the politicians who serve them, and the non-Whites who use that power as a club to steal our wealth, want it to grow.

Yes, I’d personally like a less intrusive state, a state that, except for necessities, left me and my family alone most of the time — that didn’t spy on me or intrude on my privacy — that didn’t hem me in with millions of regulations — and especially one that didn’t bleed me dry to support, and force me to associate with, those who belong on the other side of an ocean from me and mine.

But far more important than the size of the state — far more important even than the power of the state — as important as those things are to every freedom-loving man or woman — far, far more important is whose state it is.

For we as a people need a state. We need laws to protect us from violence and from corruption. We need a common defense against invaders, to secure the borders of our living space. We need an educational system that teaches our young people to understand their great heritage and enables them to participate in our unique culture, adding to it with each passing generation. We need a honorable and just legal system to protect our property, our rights, and our families. We need a money system that fairly rewards the worker and the artist and the businessman and the saver — and does not steal from us through debt or inflation. We need to support scientific research for defense, for exploration of the Universe, and for greater understanding of how we can and should decide the course of our future evolution.

We have none of these things today. Our enemies have stolen our state from us.

The regime in Washington is now the deadly enemy of the founding race that brought it into being. Its money system was designed from its inception to steal from the honest and to reward the dishonest. Its “justice” system is utterly corrupt and ruled by money, and is used whenever possible to persecute dissidents who expose its crimes. Its scientific research is increasingly used to find new ways to kill innocents overseas in the service of Israel, and to spy on us at home. Its military is never to be seen defending our borders — but is constantly waging war for Zionist hegemony in the Middle East. Our enemies have stolen our state from us.

So arguing over whether the government is too big and needs to be made smaller for the sake of liberty is a pointless argument. It is a waste of time. It is a waste of our lives. Because, as the System is set up now, barring total disaster, the size and power of government can only ratchet upward. And the size of this government should be the last thing we’re worried about anyway, since we no longer have a government of our own. Without that, we are lost. Without that, there is no liberty. We will only be free when we have a government that is answerable to us and only to us.

All our efforts and every minute of our lives should be dedicated to obtaining state power for our people once again.

To do that, we must separate ourselves from the “United States of America” and the criminal gang who now control the illegal entity in Washington.

To do that, we must think not in terms of reform or election — never! — and think only in terms of secession, separation, and withdrawal of support and consent.

To do that, more than anything else, we must know who we are. Teaching our people who we are is one of the fundamental tasks of our Alliance. If we don’t understand that, there will be no center, no cohesion, no state power for us — because there will be no us.

The National Alliance consists of men and women of European descent who are awake to their peril and their possible great destiny. We are determined that our people not only have a future, but a future glorious beyond all our dreams. By participating in our Alliance you participate in our people’s awakening. I invite you to join us in this, the only cause that really matters.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the new National Alliance membership organization, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at and Please write to us at National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. We welcome your support, your inquiries, and your help in spreading our message of hope to our people. Once again, that address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.