Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Kevin Alfred Strom Archive


The Nation That Dares
Not Speak Its Name

American Dissident Voices broadcast
November 29, 2003
by Kevin Alfred Strom


Last week I spoke to you about White America -- an America that was proud and strong and optimistic about its future just 40 years ago, within the memory of many in my audience today. Forty years ago one didn't even have to use the terms "White America" or "White American" -- everyone knew that when you said "American" you weren't referring to a Mexican or an Arab or an African or a Jew -- the nationality "American" was understood by practically everyone to mean that branch of the European race that had settled between the Rio Grande and the Canadian border or the other territories we controlled. But forty years later, White Americans are in severe decline. Our birth rate has plummeted, our borders are not defended and might as well no longer exist, our military is the plaything of Zionist warmongers, and in another 40 years we Whites will be an absolute minority in the nation our forefathers created. Why did this happen?
The short answer to that question is that it happened because someone wanted it to happen. Massive social, demographic, and political change doesn't just happen by itself.
White people have developed a pathological reluctance to publicly identify themselves as White people, or to assert or even admit that Whites have common interests. White people are afraid to state that Whites are threatened as a race, even when the threat is obvious, such as with Mexican immigration. So, for example, when some Whites have the courage to oppose Mexican immigration, they'll often couch their opposition in terms of 'overcrowding' or 'the failure of new immigrants to learn English' or the immigration 'being too fast and too much to allow for assimilation' or some other such conservative platitude. They refuse to come out and say that Mexican immigration threatens the survival of the White race and White civilization. They refuse to say that the Latino masses will not assimilate, do not want to assimilate, and in fact, if anything want us to assimilate to their racially-mixed and stratified 'Aztlan' culture instead of the other way around. These conservatives refuse to say that non-Whites cannot be assimilated into our population even if they wanted to, because the biological differences between us are too great -- and biological differences are ultimately what make the culture and behavior and achievements of each race unique. And these cowards who refuse to speak the truth on race are the Whites who oppose the Brown tide from the southern marches.
White America has truly become a Nation Which Dares Not Speak Its Name.
And any nation which does not dare to speak its name -- any people which is ashamed to admit that it is a people -- will soon perish from the Earth. This planet is teeming with human life, and only about 15 per cent. of those human beings are White, a percentage that is shrinking precipitously every day as Whites contracept and abort themselves into oblivion and non-White growth charts begin to approximate a vertical line. All human life, all national life, is a struggle for territory and water and food and resources, without which a people is doomed. All human life is competition waged to determine whose children shall live and prosper and whose children will be pushed out, whose children will starve, and whose children will fail to replenish the Earth with their kind. With less than 15 per cent. of the world population, and probably far less than 7 per cent. of the young population, Whites are losing that competition. We still nominally control a larger share of territory than 15 per cent., very desirable territory in fact. But all of our territories are now heavily invaded by non-Whites, and we stand to lose them and leave our children nothing -- unless we change our attitudes immediately and begin working to secure our nations for future generations of our race. As I said, this planet is teeming with human life, and the other races, even those who may not have our technology and science or the intelligence to create anything like them, are not ashamed to stand up for their racial interests and proudly declare that their race and nation and culture have a right to survive. Whites must regain an aggressive and racially assertive attitude, too, or we will surely perish.
Whites used to have a racially assertive attitude. We were proud of our race and its accomplishments, we cared about our race's future, and we arranged our society to protect our racial integrity.
In the year 1790, the American Constitution was only one year old. The men who had framed it and written it and ratified it were, in many cases, serving in the Congress and in other governmental offices in the United States. Many of these same men had fought in the American Revolution only a few years before. The President of the United States was George Washington. And it was in the year 1790 that those very men passed, and president Washington signed, a law called the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1790 [ ], which was on the books for 162 years, specified that only White people could become citizens of the United States. Many states had statutes -- and Thomas Jefferson himself was the author of some -- that provided severe penalties for racial mixing, which was officially forbidden by law. The founding fathers couldn't have made it much clearer than that: When they said this nation was for their 'sacred posterity,' it was clear that they meant America was a White nation -- of, by, and for White people only. And in later years, even entry to the country was limited to protect the race even further -- our immigration laws specified that the national origin of the immigrants admitted each year had to be in proportion to the percentage of that nationality already present in the United States -- which meant that virtually all immigrants had to be White. (There was a fatal flaw in the law in that it did not distinguish between Jews and Whites, so that a Jew from Poland or Germany was counted as Polish or German instead of as a racially alien Jew, but the point I am making here is that our lawmakers and the citizens they represented were almost unanimously in favor of preserving the White character of the United States and in preserving the integrity of our race.)
[ ]
As just one example of the laws which were designed to protect the health of the race and ensure its continued survival, I refer you to my own home state of Virginia and a law enacted here called the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924.
[ ] This law required the racial ancestry of all marriage license applicants to be ascertained and recorded, and forbid the marriage of Whites with non-Whites. Let me quote from the law:
An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity
...Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the State Registrar of Vital Statistics may as soon as practicable after the taking effect of this act, prepare a form whereon the racial composition of any individual, as Caucasian, Negro, Mongolian, American Indian, Asiatic Indian, Malay, or any mixture thereof, or any other non-Caucasic strains, and if there be any mixture, then the racial composition of the parents and other ancestors, in so far as ascertainable, so as to show in what generation such mixture occurred, may be certified by such individual, which form shall be known as a registration certificate.
...It shall be a felony for any person willfully or knowingly to make a registration certificate false as to color or race. The willful making of a false registration or birth certificate shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
...No marriage license shall be granted until the clerk or deputy clerk has reasonable assurance that the statements as to color of both man and woman are correct.
If there is reasonable cause to disbelieve that applicants are of pure white race, when that fact is stated, the clerk or deputy clerk shall withhold the granting of the license until satisfactory proof is produced that both applicants are "white persons" as provided for in this act.
The clerk or deputy clerk shall use the same care to assure himself that both applicants are colored, when that fact is claimed.
...It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term "white person" shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this act.
...All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act are, to the extent of such inconsistency, hereby repealed.
And that is only one law of many which were instituted between the founding of the American Republic and 1963, designed to protect our precious blood, protect our national character, protect our unique combination of beauty, intelligence, and creativity, and protect our children's future. In 1963, virtually all of these laws were standing and still on the books. The White character of America then stands in testimony to that. But now things are very different. What happened? I could cite the political betrayal step by step. I could tell you about the packing of the Supreme Court with aliens and subversives and how they struck down our racial laws. I could trace the payoffs and the pressures and the corruption of our political process which led to the enactment of new laws which opened our borders and took away our freedom of association. And those were important factors, to be sure. But the most important reason White America stands on the brink of extinction is the change in attitude of White Americans themselves. Many Whites have come to accept a self-hating anti-White morality, a morality that defines as 'good' whatever tends to the disappearance of our race, and defines as 'evil' -- in fact, the epitome of evil -- whatever tends to support or protect the continued existence of the White race.
What caused that attitude shift? There are many reasons, but one stands above all others in importance. In 1963, we stood at the very beginning of a new age. The first generation which had grown up with television was just then coming to adulthood. The impact of television can hardly be exaggerated. It quickly replaced newspapers as the primary source of news and information for the public. It rapidly became the main source of entertainment, both dramas and comedies. It was the first all-encompassing virtual reality for its victims, filling their eyes and ears with an imaginary world that to a large extent replaced the real world for most Americans for at least several hours every day. It defined reality for most of us, outside of the small part of the world personally known to us. It became the national arbiter of taste, fashion, and mores. It showed us what was good and what was bad. It showed us how the beautiful people acted, what pleased them, and what horrified and shocked them, and most of us were very sensitive to those portrayals -- unreal as they were -- and acted accordingly. And in 1963, just as today, the television networks were firmly in the control of one particular ethnic group -- the Jews. Sarnoff, a Jew, ran NBC. Goldenson ran ABC. And Paley ran CBS. All were Jewish. Their Jewish successors dominate television to this day. And heavy Jewish ownership and control of newspapers, publishing, and film studios effectively prevented anyone with a mass audience from pointing out the Jewish TV monopoly. With this media power, Jews were able to dictate to politicians, and, most importantly, they had a mainline into the optic and aural nerves of the American public and they proceeded to change those healthy racial attitudes held by Americans back when America was still America.
Jews are, in general, an intelligent people. They are very aware of the fact that racial integrity is necessary for a people's survival. They know that racial integrity is needed to preserve each people's unique character. And they apply those rules to their own people with remarkable consistency. Many of their publications decry intermarriage with non-Jews as a threat to Jewish survival. Israel is pointedly and repeatedly defined by them in ethnic and racial terms. [ ] The Jews want racial integrity and racial survival in a racial state for themselves. But for White Americans who watch the Jewish-controlled networks and read the Jewish-controlled press, it's multiculturalism, pluralism, unlimited immigration, and 'race does not exist.'
Imagine if George Bush, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney all stood up in front of the cameras and microphones and declared in their official capacities that they "were firmly committed to the survival of America as a White nation." Unlikely. Unthinkable, actually, considering the nature of our current 'leaders.' But Bush, Powell, Cheney and many other senior administration officials have made such a statement. They just changed the words around a little. They substituted 'Israel' for 'America' and 'Jewish' for 'White.' But the statement was made by them. Again and again, in fact. And, if you do an Internet search on the phrase, you'll find an amazing number of White American and other non-Jewish politicians who are very concerned over the "survival of Israel as a Jewish state." And they didn't just pull that phrase out of a hat. It's not just 'the survival of Israel.' The 'as a Jewish state' is repeatedly tagged on the end. Again and again. It's something they've been told to say, almost word for word. The land by itself means nothing if the race is destroyed. And so, it is Israel as a Jewish state that is consistently emphasized.
On June 2d, 2003 it was reported that Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom was extremely concerned that the language used by Arab and US diplomats meet with Jewish approval, and he particularly wanted "a clear statement by Bush of the need to preserve Israel as a Jewish state. We expect Abu Mazen to say so as well. We expect the Sharm el-Sheikh summit to express an Arab undertaking to recognize Israel as a Jewish state."
[ ]
The next day, June 3d, the Israeli newspaper Maariv discussed how seriously Jewish leaders take the inclusion of the words 'Jewish state' in statements on Israel by American politicians. Leave the phrase 'as a Jewish state' out and they become very concerned. When it was merely rumored that Bush was not planning to refer to Israel in precisely that fashion in an upcoming summit in Aqaba, the Jews made it clear what a mistake that was. The article was even titled "Bush Refuses to Declare that Israel is A Jewish State." I quote:
According to messages received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs over the past several days, President Bush does not intend to refer to Israel as the "state of the Jewish people" during the summit in Aqaba. Israel requested that President Bush include a reference to Israel as a Jewish state in his speech at Aqaba, in order to clarify that the Americans do not recognize the right of return of the Palestinians but Palestinian pressure caused the Americans not to make the planned reference. In Israel there was surprise at the American refusal, primarily because of the fact that in Bush's speech at the University of South Carolina last month the President noted that Israel is a Jewish state. ...Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom met yesterday with the Prime Minister and emphasized the need to continue requesting that the Americans include a reference to Israel as a Jewish state in his speech. Sharon and Shalom decided to add a statement to the Israeli speech that Israel is a Jewish state and that it will continue to be so.
[ ]
On the same day as the Maariv article appeared, June 3d, Colin Powell told a press conference that the administration believes that "Israel must be always seen as a Jewish state."
[ ]
The very next day, at the summit, president Bush "pledged to protect Israel 'as a vibrant Jewish state.'" Gee, I wonder, why did he decide to phrase it that way? [ ]
And then, on July 29th and on several other occasions, Bush used almost precisely the same language: "America is firmly committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state..." Correspondent John Donnelly of the Boston Globe admitted that "Bush always uses similar language when addressing any political issue involving Israel."
[ ]
[ ]
On October 24, Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at a campaign reception at New York's Waldorf-Astoria hotel. What did he say? "In the Holy Land, America is committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state, and we are firmly committed to the safety of the Israeli people." Haven't we heard that somewhere before?
[ ]
[ ]
Republican congressional candidate Jack Ryan must have had the loan of Bush's and Powell's and Cheney's speechwriter recently. During his campaign, he said that "As a nation, we need to be committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state and the safety of the Israeli people."
[ ]
On July 8th, Virginia Republican Representative Eric Cantor, who is the chief deputy Republican whip, took a page from the same book when he stated "Mr. Bush is more committed to Israel as a Jewish state than any other president."
[ ]
Assistant Secretary of State William Burns even tries to moderate Israeli settlement-building in the Occupied Territories by implying that by expanding its borders, Israel may lose its Jewish racial character. He said on the 17th of this month that "given the reality of Palestinian demographics, Israeli settlements imperil the future of Israel as a Jewish state. ...Within the next decade or so, Jews will be a minority in the area encompassing Israel, the West Bank and Gaza." I wonder what Mr. Burns thinks about the changing demographics of Texas, California, and North Carolina. Do demographic trends there imperil the White majority? Do they threaten the existence of Texas as a White state? Do they threaten the existence of America as a White nation?
[ ]
Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, decried the return of expelled Arabs to what is now Israel in 1999, saying "Permitting an unlimited number of Arabs from around the world to settle in Israel is nothing less than a recipe for the destruction of the Jewish State."
[ ]
Howard Dean, not be outdone by the Republicans in currying Jewish favor, also declares that Israel is and must continue to be "a Jewish state." Dean, married to a Jewess, is unlikely to be concerned that Vermont remain a White state.
[ ]
In his column of June 6th, Jewish columnist Charles Krauthammer was following the party line when he expressed outrage because Arabs (!) wouldn't endorse Israel's "right to exist as a Jewish state."
[ ]
An editorial in New York's Jewish Post openly calls for us to find ways "to protect Israel as a Jewish state with [an] ever growing Jewish majority." [ ] Why, then, do the Jewish media and their followers tell us it is wrong to want America to have an ever-growing White majority?
In recent negotiations between Palestinians and Israel's Labour Party, the Jewish side requested that, as part of the price for peace, Palestinian refugees must renounce any claim to return to Israel, and must further "recognise Israel as a Jewish state for eternity." [ ] That's an expression of their concern -- their imperative requirement -- for the racial integrity of their population. That's the way the Jews view it. And White politicians are supposed to support Jewish racial integrity and Israel as a racial state, while at the same time they must never express concern for White racial integrity or concern about the survival of France, Italy, Germany, Britain, or America as White nations. [ ]
Who is more likely to survive -- the race which denies it even exists, which is afraid to speak out for its own interests except with weasel words and dissimulation? Or the race that openly asserts that it is right, moral, and necessary that it continue to exist and that it have its own exclusive territory to guarantee its future? The Jews have their advocates aplenty, born and bought. They have their racial state.
White people need to shed their fear and show their strength. We need to stand up and say that it is right and good and moral for our people to survive -- for our people to have our own countries -- for White children to continue being born. And the group that is saying that uncompromisingly and continuously and responsibly in every land where White people dwell is the National Alliance. Join us today.


For the latest contact, donation, and other update information regarding Kevin Alfred Strom, please visit his web page at Please also visit, and Prices, addresses, and availability information pertaining to materials cited in his works are subject to change.

Please also visit the America First Institute donation page.




Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.