by Kevin Alfred Strom
ON A recent Winter morning I visited one of the most venerated historical sites in the United States, the National Archives, where I saw with my own eyes the founding document of this nation, the Constitution. I was moved by the sight of the words which formed and still ought to form the Supreme Law of this nation, the words which set a wall — forever, it was thought — between our rights and freedoms, and the ambitions of tyrants and demagogues.
Every February we are subjected a quasi-religious frenzy of adulation for the changes wrought in America’s laws by the so-called “civil rights movement” — so now is an especially good time to take a look at what the Supreme Law really meant to the people who created it and how the precious legacy of freedom and self-determination they bequeathed to us hangs today by the frailest and most tattered of threads.
The wildly misnamed “civil rights movement” was and is the epitome of injustice, trampling as it does upon the sacred right of free association, and creating bogus “rights” and “entitlements” which, in many cases, represent exactly the kind of oppression and government thievery that the founders of America were attempting to prevent when they wrote the Constitution.
It is true that Jefferson wrote the words “all Men are created equal” which have been so useful to our enemies in imposing multiracial tyranny over the United States. But he was attempting to overthrow a corrupt aristocracy of favoritism and class, and his words have no racial implication whatever — except the one that dishonest multiracialists have grafted onto them.
The evidence of their misappropriation is found in the life and works of the man who wrote them.
Jefferson’s lifelong advocacy of racial separatism is well-documented and undeniable. He desired that all Blacks be returned to Africa or, in the interest of practicality, shipped to the island of Santo Domingo in the Caribbean. Any interpretation of Jefferson’s words which is in direct contradiction to his forcefully and repeatedly expressed beliefs on race is obviously an incorrect interpretation.
Naturally, what the boobs are taught in the schools and on the idiot box about these words is totally at variance with the facts of the matter.
Thomas Jefferson, who rationally opposed Black slavery on the grounds that it was bad for both races, also opposed converting America into a multiracial society. His plan to end slavery included a plan for the humane resettlement of all freed Blacks in Africa.
From 1776 to 1778, Jefferson drafted proposed revisions and modernizations to the laws of Virginia dealing with slaves. When finished, his proposals included these provisions:
1. Free Blacks were forbidden to enter the state.
2. Blacks freed in Virginia were required to leave the state within one year.
3. A White woman bearing a mixed-race child was required to leave Virginia within one year.
4. Those who violated these statutes were to be placed “outside of the protection of the laws” — that is, they could be dealt with by anyone in any way with absolute impunity, which was the original meaning of the term “outlaw” and which certainly constituted a most terrible punishment.
In 1824, only two years before his death, Jefferson proposed an alternative to the emancipation and relocation of all Blacks to Africa: gradual emancipation of all newly-born Blacks, and their transportation after a few years to the island of Santo Domingo.
Throughout his public life, Jefferson held true to his concept of humane racial separation which he summed up in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1781, Query XIV):
“Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”
Modern Americans, particularly those with no or only a dim memory of the Old America, are probably easy to fool in large numbers. That is why the media liars and “educators” are able to get away with twisting Jefferson’s legacy until it is close to being the opposite of Jefferson’s actual views. Take a look at what they have done to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. They have made him into an icon of multiracialism.
Considering the fact that Lincoln wanted the freed slaves to be resettled in Africa, he certainly was no integrationist.
Lincoln was, on balance, a baleful figure in our nation’s history. His de facto suspension of the Constitution (for example, when he imprisoned the legislature of Maryland before they had the chance to vote to secede from the Union) marked the end of the First American Republic, the Republic of the founders. His prosecution of that horribly fratricidal war, from which genetic impoverishment we have not yet recovered, is a black mark against him.
But, compared with modern multiracialists, he was a saint. Yes, he did kill White men and women and children to achieve crass political objectives. But he drew the line at forcing them to share their society with Blacks. That he never countenanced.
So let us consider the real nature and value of our rights, and of the Supreme Law by which we are supposed to be governed.
If we are to realistically assess our heritage and our prospects today, we must not romanticize or mythologize the Framers or our founding document. We must acknowledge that “rights” are a concept only and have no physical existence except as a cloud of zooming electrons in our brains. No matter where you search or how long you search, even if you carefully sift the entire Universe with a sieve, you will not be able to lay your hands on a single right. Rights are, however, a very useful concept when setting up societies.
Intelligent and community-minded White people, like those who founded the United States of America, naturally want to set things up so they and their posterity are protected by the force of law such that they can keep the vast preponderance of the fruits of their labor, keep the savages and congenital criminals at bay, have the ability to learn and communicate without undue restriction, and many other things.
So, from time to time, they institute governments and constitutions which embody these rights as laws. (The United States Constitution, as originally formulated, is a good example of what can be done when intentions are good and the racial quality of the population is reasonably high. Sadly, that Constitution was in many respects abrogated long ago and now exists primarily as window-dressing for a regime which in most important ways is the opposite of that intended by the authors of the Constitution.)
Modern Americans are continually told that they enjoy “freedom and democracy,” and those two terms are usually conflated. But real “democracy” — real rule of the majority of “voters” or majority of “representatives” — would mean that our freedoms, our property, and our very lives would be totally at the mercy of whoever could sway the majority on any given day, and we know from their own writings that it was precisely this kind of mob rule that the Constitution was designed to prevent.
Freedom is an extremely rare bird on Earth indeed, and it never coexists with democracy. The mob must be restrained by a constitution (and the power necessary to enforce it), and that is what preserves what little is left of our freedoms in the West. Again and again our Constitution states “Congress shall make no law….”
The framers of the American constitution were horrified at the idea of democracy and strove to avoid it in the new Republic. The rubes didn’t get fully snookered by the democracy hoax until the Wilson administration and his phony war “to make the world safe for democracy.”
Remember, even the most brutal African tyrannies and Communist slave states have regular elections and legislatures and everything that goes with the democratic Big Store setup. Just like we do. Voting has little or nothing to do with freedom and rights.
Voting — and the things that legally could be done through voting — were in fact restricted and limited by the Framers. And they also carefully limited who was permitted to vote.
When the franchise is restricted, as it was in the America of the Founders (and as it still could be by an IQ test or a literacy and history test) then something approaching real self-government is possible, since — and I am going to be brutally frank here — then the morons no longer form a controlling plurality.
When the average quality of the human material you have to work with is as low as it is in multiracialist America, the one-biped one-vote principle is just a guarantor of the election of the slickest liars approved of by the media bosses.
But despite the fact that the boobs will believe almost anything they are told, a principle upon which many fortunes have been made and many candidates elected, there are still a few readers of these lines capable of rational thought, and of checking the facts for themselves. There is a White nation here waiting to be reborn in freedom.
It is for these that I write.
What the Founders gave us was racially-based representative government which guaranteed freedom of thought and action to its citizens by tying down the government (and the mob) with a constitution. For short, I will label this concept “self-government.”
Multiracialists believe it is permissible, even laudable, to allow or encourage the transformation of formerly White societies into largely non-White societies. They think it is permissible, even necessary, to imprison or punish those who would oppose this trend.
We should carefully compare the record of non-White societies with that of White societies in creating, securing, and maintaining self-government.
Self-government, like science, is essentially unknown to African history. Bloody Liberia, you may recall, began with a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution.
It seems to be mainly alien to Asia and the Mideast as well. The Philippines began similarly to Liberia. And we all know how well Haiti is faring since “democracy” was “restored” there by several successive American administrations.
In Latin America, freedom and self-government shine the brightest where White genes predominate: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay. Other nations there are quite livable, too, when the genetic elite has the reins of power, though this can hardly be called self-government.
In Europe and places where Europeans have planted their colonies the examples are ancient, recurring, and sometimes enduring.
But as we transform ourselves into the racial equivalent of Haiti or Guatemala, our freedoms will contract accordingly and our chances for self-government will become essentially nil.
Though Nature gives no one any rights of any kind — how could she when her Winter or her cougars could snuff you out at any moment? — she did give us minds which crave, and perhaps need, independence and freedom. And she also gave us muscles and hands and brains with which to obtain the independence we crave, and to fight against all who would take it from us.
So it has always been: a people has the rights it is willing to fight for. One of these rights that our ancestors, at least, were willing to fight and die for was the right of freedom of speech. By the definition we have established we can fairly call it a sacred right of our people.
Therefore, by our standards, any government that would punish a human being for the content of his speech is a criminal government and deserves to be opposed.
Therefore those who would stand for the right of free speech must stand in opposition to the governments of Canada, France, Austria, Germany, and Britain — all of which criminalize speech which casts doubt on Jewish atrocity stories or speech which is critical of certain protected racial groups.
Another right our ancestors were willing to fight and die for was the right of individuals to be armed. Under the Constitution, this right was sacrosanct, and was clearly understood to be so from time of the Founders’ clear statements on the subject until quite recently, when the liars and destroyers of the Constitution achieved their pinnacle of success under the regime of the treasonous piece of human filth who contaminated the White House from 1933 to 1945 and his successors.
That administration, and the vast army of Jewish supremacists and subversives which it brought into Washington and into power, was the literal executioner of many of our Constitutional rights. How did they do it?
As its authors made quite clear, the purpose of the Constitution was to define a few strictly limited powers for the government beyond which it was never to trespass, reserving all others for the people, and taking care to enumerate in the Bill of Rights various areas where Congress could “make no law.” But the second Roosevelt administration, and all administrations since then, have evaded almost the entire concept of limitation of powers by twisting two words in the preamble to the Constitution: “general welfare.”
Since the Framers said they were establishing the Constitution to promote the “general welfare” or overall good of the people, the subverters argued that the legislature could therefore do practically anything that they declared was for the “general welfare.” It’s a childish argument, obviously false, but it is essentially on this basis that we are now subjected to the Orwellian “Living Constitution” doctrine which means in practice that we must submit to every jot and tittle of the reams of paper (called laws) emitted by (but often unread by) the whores on Capitol Hill, even if the Acts of the criminals are specifically forbidden by the Supreme Law.
For example, the Second Amendment, you will remember, was even stronger than the “Congress shall make no law” provisions, since it went further and enjoined the government from even infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms — in other words, the government could do nothing which encroached even in the slightest way upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
To the extent that judges have “interpreted” this right of the citizens out of existence, and to the extent that legislators and their real employers have violated the founders’ intent in this matter, they are criminals and should face exemplary punishment.
After all, guns are merely inanimate objects, like stones or frying pans, totally incapable of causing even the slightest harm.
The Jewish supremacists who fear an armed White populace, on the other hand, are by their very nature dangerous to our freedoms, our security, our property, our money, and our very existence as a people.
They are actually far more dangerous than ordinary criminals: Like muggers, they take what doesn’t belong to them — but unlike muggers, they often have the force of “law” behind their thefts and almost always present us with a concocted fake “morality” to convince us that their depredations are “right” and “just” or “for our own good.”
A excellent argument could even be made that most of the actions of the Jewish supremacists and their politician employees are already illegal — if we take the Constitution of the United States seriously, that is. So it is certainly rational to stop registering guns and start registering Jewish supremacists.
All joking aside, let those who commit these illegal acts be brought before a renewed bar of justice. Since a patriotic renewal would mean literally “miles of trials,” we might begin with those who have been instrumental in infringing our right to keep and bear arms — that is, restricting that right in even the slightest way.
The United States Code states that it is a crime “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.” This crime is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment, or, if death results, by up to life imprisonment.
Of course, the gun grabbers who deny the citizens the right to defend themselves against criminals and savages have oppressed Americans and this oppression has resulted in innumerable deaths, and these violators of the law should be indicted under this provision of the United States Code.
In addition the functionaries which place innocent White children in the maw of multiracialist hellholes like the Detroit and Los Angeles schools are acting in direct contradiction to the words and the intent of the Framers of the Supreme Law of the land should be indicted for violating the Constitution and multiple statutes of federal law.
In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has taken away our rights of free association and removed the protections afforded to the White working man intended by the Founding Fathers, should be indicted for violations of the cited statute, the Constitution, and multiple statutes of federal law.
In addition, the regime in Washington, which openly flouts the law and spies on American citizens, and which persecutes innocent free thinkers like Ernst Zundel and Chester Doles because they are not liked by a rich and powerful alien pressure group, should be indicted for violations of the cited statute, the Constitution, and multiple statutes of federal law.
Need I go on?
The corrupt and alien-influenced power structure that squats in Washington routinely, regularly, and knowingly violates not only our ancient and legitimate laws, but even violates their own edicts whenever it suits their purposes. They have very nearly achieved their goals of taking our freedom and our self-determination away from us. But a consciousness is building among White men and women to regain our precious independence and protect our heritage.
The process will require great work, great sacrifice, and probably great tribulation, but I believe we can have self-government once again. But we must never forget that this great evolutionary step — which is what true self-government really is — requires a population of a relatively high intellect and character; and it further requires a certain worldview alien to the mentalities of the vast majority of the peoples of the Earth.
As I said before, Liberia was founded with the noblest of intentions with a constitution modeled almost exactly on that of the United States. It ended with a warlord shooting his political rivals in the head on the bloody beaches of the South Atlantic and with literal cannibalism. The current panjandrum there, of course, promises a “return” to “democracy,” and makes many other noises which, he has learned, will cause the White idiots to open their pocketbooks. You know where that is going.
The Philippines, who can boast of only a somewhat more edifying history, began similarly, with a near-replica of the United States Constitution.
Some peoples are suited for freedom and self-government and some are not. Those which are not usually prove it in short order.
As America has gotten less and less White, it has veered inexorably toward a centralized police state, with only the barest of lip service paid to the founding principles (and then only when they cannot be actively falsified into their very opposites).
We can recover our freedom only by rediscovering that we are White. We can recover our freedom only by building a new White community which will embody our racial ideals and the ideals of self-government in even stronger and more permanent form than our ancestors embodied them in those sacred words on parchment found in the National Archives.
The revolution is in our hearts and minds. Our destiny is our hands and in our souls. Let us build a new society and a new world.
* * *
Source: American Dissident Voices, February 26, 2006