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

   

Those Who Know Why

Serious thoughts on strategy and expediency in building a White tomorrow; and Kevin Strom's interview with Mehr News.

American Dissident Voices broadcast
week of May 29 - June 4, 2005
by Kevin Alfred Strom

ON TODAY'S BROADCAST, I'll be talking about the dangers of compromising our truths to gain political advantage; and we'll be broadcasting the recent interview I gave to Iran's Mehr News Agency on the critical situation in the Middle East.

Before I begin, I want to thank all of the National Vanguard members who met with me in New Orleans last weekend -- and the many who signed their membership applications right on the spot. Special thanks should go to National Vanguard members from California, including Drahomir Stojkovic who chaired a successful National Vanguard meeting, one of two; to Aaron Collins and David Pringle and NationalVanguard.org editors Neil Camberly and David Mullenax who added a great deal to our meetings, which by the way included at least a fifth of those present at the Conference; to the many members of the Tampa National Vanguard Unit who came in force to promote our pro-White music and literature; to Evan Thomas who provided beautiful traditional fiddle music for the entire conference; to Gordon Springberg and the other Michigan National Vanguard members who provided our National Vanguard Update brochures and membership applications; to National Vanguard activist April Gaede and her daughters Lynx and Lamb of the band Prussian Blue, who provided with their music what were the most moving moments of the entire event. And to all of you who offered support and words of wisdom and offers of help, I thank you all. And I thank David Duke for organizing and making this event possible.

***


On last week's program, you heard the speech which I gave at the European American Conference in New Orleans. As many of you who attended the conference -- or who listened to it on the Internet -- know, there was some controversy among the attendees and among the speakers during the panel session as to the direction the Cause of White people should take in the future.
[ http://www.davidduke.org/conference/ ]

Present at the conference were representatives of European nationalist parties including the French Front National (FN) and the British National Party (BNP). Many of the attendees at the conference interpreted parts of my speech and some of my remarks in the panel discussion as criticisms of the Jewish-friendly and even integration-friendly positions of those two parties. And that interpretation is correct. Let me explain.
[ http://nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5096 ]

First let me say that I was impressed by the willingness of these White leaders to attend this conference. (Let me also say that that my criticisms have no connection with my high regard for John Tyndall, founder of the BNP, who spoke at last year's conference.) This was a conference at which our uncompromising activist organization, National Vanguard, took a very prominent part -- and it was a conference organized by the man who wrote the bestselling Jewish Supremacism, David Duke. Considering that these political parties have taken public positions considerably distancing themselves from the forthright truths that David Duke tells and we in National Vanguard tell about Jewish power and the need for a government answerable to White people only, that took some courage. The clear implication is that these leaders fully know the truth, but must temper their statements for political advantage -- and to avoid the fines and imprisonment that will be their fate if they speak the truth with utter frankness in their homelands, where draconian 'hate speech' laws criminalize free expression.

When we are tempted to criticize our European brethren, it is also well to remember how much more successful they have been in gaining public support for their organizations compared to our success on this side of the Atlantic. It gives one pause. I attribute part of that success to precisely those "hate speech" laws we so rightly decry. In addition to stifling words that need to be spoken, those laws also stifle some words that we'd be better off stifling. While they cause real suffering for our people and real oppression for many true patriots, they also crimp the style of agents provocateurs and of the irresponsible folks whose emotional outbursts so often frighten away good White people from our ranks. They enforce some discipline in our ranks -- though we'd be much better off enforcing such discipline ourselves, and it is quite shameful that the Jewish supremacists who are the driving force behind such laws had to inadvertently do it for us. Other reasons for the success of White-oriented European groups include 1) the inability of Europeans on an overcrowded continent to run to Whiter pastures like Americans still can; 2) the greater rootedness of White Europeans in their traditional cultures and identities as compared to White Americans; 3) the greater presence of media not under the control of Jews, including in some cases state-owned media; and 4) the relative strength of the scientific worldview and the relative unimportance of fundamentalist religion in Europe, which in the United States has mutated into a powerful force for multiracialism and Zionism.

Many American racialists see the relative success of these European groups and want to emulate it. Others see the weakening and self-censorship of our message exemplified by many of these European parties as potentially fatal to our Cause.

At one point in a broadcast from the conference hotel with David Duke, Stormfront founder and owner Don Black likened ideological purists to people who strut their correctness and radicalism at the expense of success, making an analogy to a pedestrian who crosses a busy street when he has the light in his favor, and is immediately struck down by a truck, and, as he lies in the street bleeding and dying, justifies his crossing by saying "But I was right! I had a green light!"

There's a lot to be said for Mr. Black's analogy. Success in saving our people is what really matters. If we fail, it won't matter how ideologically pure we were. Even if we engrave our principles on our tombstones, we will have no White descendants to read them or remember or care. We must succeed.

But equally important is remaining true to our core vision of who we are (men and women of the European race), who our Opponent is (the Jewish power structure), and what we are trying to accomplish (building an infrastructure that can grow into a true sustainable White community that will survive hard times and eventually secure White living space under a racially-conscious White government). If you win every election for the next 100 years, but you fail to secure White living space -- or even desire it anymore -- then success has totally eluded you, and you will have no White descendants to congratulate you on your electoral victories.

Last week I used the example of the Democratic party to show how a once-pro-White organization could be corrupted and taken over by our enemies if it made winning elections its primary goal. I said, in part:

"Just over 100 years ago the Democratic party in the United States was the party of states' rights. The Democratic party was the party of the White working man. The Democratic party was the party of racial segregation, racial separation, and racial integrity. But neither the members nor the leaders of the Democratic party were sufficiently aware of the forces the Opponent had arrayed against them. Sadly, only a few even knew who the Opponent was. And most of them were not men of principle -- they were men of expediency. 'Whatever works' was their watchword. And, when Franklin Roosevelt swept into power on a wave of Jewish money, Jewish advisors, and a tsunami of vile lies and deceptions, the party of racial separation and the White working man was quickly transformed into the party of Affirmative Action, unlimited immigration, Jewish supremacism, and diseased sodomites. But they did win a lot of elections. A great success, that."

And I am sure that if you had warned the leaders of the Democratic party in the late 19th century that in a few short decades, their party would come to embody nearly the exact opposite of the principles it then upheld, they would have laughed in your face. They would have told you that the party leadership was in good hands and that you could depend on the men who held the reins of power to do what was right. How wrong they were.

Now there is a place in each of our nations for a political party which appeals to White people on a mass scale -- reaching out for support and votes to a large number of Whites who have only the most basic and even in some cases marginal understanding of White identity and the crisis which threatens our race's very existence. Such a party should not lie to our people, but it may at times be forced by political realities and repressive laws to refrain from spelling out the whole truth. Where such parties exist and are led by men and women with a full understanding of our racial plight, I wish them all success and hope they win every election they contest. Such parties may constitute one tool in our arsenal as we defend our biological existence. But they should not be ends in themselves. They should not be the tail, not the dog. If they become ends in themselves, without firm control by fully-enlightened and absolutely dedicated racialists, they will end up no better than the Democratic and Republican parties, each of which in its day was seen by many as a vehicle for White interests.

The power behind pro-White political parties must consist of a dedicated cadre of leaders thoroughly committed to not just a new party in power, but to a new racially-progressive society and a new race-based civilization, with the continuity of our ideas from generation to generation, as leadership passes from the old to the young over the decades, being one of their very highest priorities.

The leadership of our parties must come from a vibrant and viable racially-conscious White community, which intentionally grooms its leaders from those who have fully understood and fully assimilated our biological worldview. And our parties -- implicitly -- and the White community itself -- explicitly -- must be governed by the principles inherent in that biological worldview.

Just being governed -- for now, for a single generation -- by those who accept the biological worldview is not enough. Steps must be taken to ensure that less principled leaders can never gain power over the institutions we have created.

Look at what happened to America. Our founding fathers and prominent leaders for more than a century -- even up to Lincoln himself, whatever his flaws -- were racial separatists, who created a nation in which only Whites could be citizens, and certainly they intended that principle to remain unchallenged as long as the United States should exist. Even the strong advocates of an end to Black slavery, like Jefferson and Monroe, favored a racial separation so thoroughgoing that it placed the different races on different continents!

But where did it all lead? To the present, my friends, the terrible present... where White children are a dwindling, hated, and endangered minority in what was once the land of the White pioneers.

The Founding Fathers showed us in a thousand ways that they wanted a White future. Jefferson said miscegenation should be a felony and that the different races should not live under the same government. The first Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stood until 1952 and declared that only White people could become citizens of our nation. James Monroe and Francis Scott Key lent their names and their reputations to a plan to repatriate freed slaves back to Africa, a plan which Lincoln also supported. But they also failed us. They failed to see what was needed to make sure that White future became a reality. They failed to make the basis of the new republic explicitly racial. They failed to enshrine its racial basis in the constitution in language so unmistakable that it could never be misconstrued. Had they done so, we would be immeasurably better off. It is true that even the best constitution is an imperfect defense against genocide and evil, but if the White race had been protected by the Founders with as much armor as they gave freedom of speech and freedom of religion, the Jewish supremacists would have made far less progress in their drive to obliterate us.

So what am I saying? I am saying that we need a racial movement and a racial community which is as explicit in its principles as the Founding Fathers should have been in our Constitution, with its members and leaders sharing a deep and scientific understanding of the issues we face as a people. This racial community will be the vanguard which leads our people to freedom and self-determination. This racial community, of which National Vanguard represents the bare beginning, could operate political parties, or alternatively provide the seedbed from which the leaders of those parties are selected, but neither the political parties -- nor any mass outreach program -- should be ends in themselves.

We should not forget that we live for a day which we may never see in our lifetimes. We should not forget that we live for a day when White children can walk untrammeled and free from fear, aspiring to higher and more beautiful things than we can even dream of.

We should remember the words of Emerson: "The man who knows how will always have a job. The man who also knows why will always be his boss. As to methods there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble."

* * *


Shortly before the conference in New Orleans, I was contacted by a reporter for Iran's Mehr News Agency, who interviewed me. The interview has been published by the widely-read news service, and the full English version of the interview follows. I began by introducing myself:

KAS: Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak with you. My name is Kevin Alfred Strom and I serve as Director and Editor for National Vanguard, America's leading organization for men and women of European descent. We recently published an article about Iran which your readers may want to read:
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3987 ]

MEHR News: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is now holding its annual Policy Conference -- the most important event of the year for this pro-Israel group. As you may be aware the Committee had an espionage scandal last year, directly linked to AIPAC attempting to get secret U.S. intelligence on Iran. How do you assess this process?

KAS: I believe that despite the stranglehold that Jews have on the U.S. mass media -- and through the media on almost all politicians, Republican or Democrat -- there still are patriotic and honest elements within the government.

The investigation of AIPAC and the resulting arrest of Franklin indicates a move by federal law enforcement agents and officials who are alarmed by the abuse of power and criminal acts of the Zionist Jews and their non-Jewish neocon agents within the Bush administration.

The Jewish elements within the government will be pushing from all sides to make Franklin the only scapegoat and stymie a full investigation, however, and it remains to be seen what the outcome will be.

The largely Jewish-controlled press in this country is essentially burying this story, and the average American seldom if ever hears of it. It is mentioned, but not highlighted: their usual technique.

One is reminded of the near-total silence of the "U.S." media regarding the "Israeli Art Student" spy case -- which involved the capture of the largest spy ring in American history, yet it was treated as a non-story by the press. And, on direct orders from the Jewish now-Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, the Zionist agents were returned to Israel without a single charge being filed.

See: [http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4454]
and [http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2826 ]

MEHR News: I know that some high level figures featured as speakers at the AIPAC event include: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, and many others of note. How do the American people feel about that?

KAS: The American people are divided on the issue of AIPAC and the Israeli lobby, with a growing minority segment of well-informed Americans openly opposing Zionist domination of the American government.

This well-informed and educated segment consists of both racially-aware rightists and human-rights-focused leftists. The rightists or conservatives in this group came to an understanding of the toxicity of Jewish power through their awareness of Jewish efforts over many decades to increase immigration and dilute and overwhelm the European-descended majority in the United States. The liberals or leftists in this group have come to see Israel as one of the most violent, oppressive, and aggressive nations on Earth, and they deeply resent the Zionists' use of American money and military power to further their genocidal objectives.

Among the poorly educated and those less well-informed (sadly, the majority of the electorate) Israel is seen in the simplistic terms presented in the mass media -- a victim of terrorism and a shining light of democracy; or as she is painted by some fundamentalist Christian churches -- an especially "holy" land and people foreseen in supernatural "prophecies" and deserving of unswerving and unlimited support.

MEHR News: Why is it that Israel's spying in the US doesn't make relations between the two countries break down -- but other espionage cases, involving other nations, make the respective international relations tough?

KAS: As far as the great mass of the American public are concerned, the Israeli spy scandals hardly exist. The Jewish-controlled media may mention them, but very seldom. Britney Spears' latest love affair is given far more coverage. For far too many Americans, they only become outraged at crimes and injustices if 1) they are affected personally, or 2) the media masters raise a 24-hour-per-day commotion and tell them they should be outraged. And the media owners and managers in this country are disproportionately Jewish, and their coverage is driven by their racial agenda.

As far as most politicians are concerned, with very few exceptions they are deathly afraid of being given bad coverage by those same Jewish-controlled media outlets. That explains their fawning pro-Israel views and their near-total lack of interest in Israeli spies or Israeli nukes or Israeli atrocities.

MEHR News: As you may be aware, Iran and sanctions against her will be on the agenda in the AIPAC conference, and we know that the above-mentioned figures who will participate in that are policy makers in the U.S. What are the prospects for U.S. policy on Iran?

KAS: National Vanguard opposes the warlike moves of the neocons and Zionists against Iran. We do not believe that they are sincerely concerned about "weapons of mass destruction." We do not believe that they have the best interests of America at heart. We believe that their primary loyalty is to Israel, and that Americans are seen by them mainly as serfs and cannon fodder to serve and die for Jewish interests. We believe that the neocons are fanatics who want to violently remake the Middle East, including Iran -- and we believe that, through spilling a sea of innocent blood, they intend to create sham-democratic regimes there, dominated by Israel and international Jewish capital.

A war with Iran would be a terrible disaster for both our peoples, several orders of magnitude worse than the obscene debacle in Iraq. It could easily metastasize into a world war.

I do not want this war -- I oppose it with all my heart -- but I must say that one possible positive outcome of such a war would be the final defeat of Zionist ambitions. And even if such a war did not result in clear-cut military defeat for the Zionists, and merely ended in a bloody stalemate or a protracted guerrilla conflict, the price would be so high for even the most obtuse Americans that the Jewish war party in the United States would be forever discredited. And then new possibilities would open up.
[ http://mehrnews.com/fa/NewsPrint.aspx?NewsID=187004 ]



ILLUSTRATION: Screen shot of the Mehr News Agency main page



***


For further information on joining National Vanguard, please write to Post Office Box 5145, Charlottesville VA 22905, or visit http://www.nationalvanguard.org/ and click on the "join" link at the top of the page. We need your support.

This is Kevin Alfred Strom saying I'll see you next week and reminding you to keep on thinking free.


 



Source: National Vanguard

For the latest contact, donation, and other update information regarding Kevin Alfred Strom, please visit his web page at Americafirstbooks.com. Please also visit kevin-strom.com, and revilo-oliver.com. 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.