American Dissident VoicesAudioKevin Alfred StromRadio

Brexit, Whexit, and Magna Europa

brexit_balloonAmerican Dissident Voices broadcast of June 25, 2016

Listen to the broadcast

by Kevin Alfred Strom

WE IN THE National Alliance welcome the victory of Brexit — the secession of Britain from the European Union (EU). We say this not because a European union is a bad idea; it’s not — but because this European Union (with a capital “u”) is a nest of treasonous, White-hating enemies of our race who serve the interests of the Jewish power structure that exploits us, rules us, and has slated us for racial extinction.

A federation of European states — and extra-European states with European-derived populations, firmly based on our common interests in racial self-preservation, unity in the face of common dangers, and the evolutionary advancement of our race would be a very good thing.

Unfortunately, the EU is very close to being the precise opposite of that. It facilitates the invasion of Europe by millions of racially incompatible aliens with a primitive, racially-destructive religion. Together with NATO, the EU uses pressure tactics, economic bullying, force, and the threat of force to punish nations and peoples who do not want any part of the fraudulent Jewish system of lifetime bondage to bank debt that constitutes the “international financial system.” Together with the even more Judaized US, the EU imposes another fraud on the people — mass “democracy” coupled with Jewish oligarchic control of the mass media, which cripples our nations in a mire of division, treason, confusion, and lies. No thanks. Good riddance!

Brexit will shake the unity and diminish the strength of the anti-White political structure that now rules us. And that’s a good thing. It’s an encouraging step.

Brittney Cooper, a generously-proportioned Black woman who is a professor of “Women’s and Gender Studies and Africana Studies” at — ahem! — Rutgers University, recently tweeted her response to the Brexit success, managing to combine Marxist economics with illiterate Ebonics in one or two breaths, saying “The only thing I know that makes White folks vote against their own economic interests is racism . . . . White nationalism gone be the death of us all”:

Cooper1cooper2Far from White nationalism “gone [pronounced with a long “o”] be the death of us all,” White nationalism — in its pure, radical, uncompromised form as embodied in the National Alliance — is the only way that we and our civilization can survive. Bravo Britain for a small first step in that direction.

The Jewish response is much more nuanced and sophisticated. An article in the June 22 edition of the New York Times, pp. B1, B4, titled “After ‘Brexit’ Vote, Europe Has Choice; What Is Needed Is Democracy On a European Scale” is quite revealing. One wit and commentator gives us this amusing summary of the Times piece:

After telling us that polls and all experts agree that Brexit will be easily defeated and that the hate campaign of [Brexit proponent] Boris Johnson against [Muslim] immigrants has collapsed, the Jews at the Times recommend that for full integration of Europe to proceed, it is clear that the EU must abolish all the nations of Europe so a true democracy can be granted to the people of Europe. National governments must not be allowed to obstruct progress by clinging to narrow national interests. [In other words, no more Brexit-style choices can be allowed.]

Mary Kaldor, “professor of global governance” at the London School of Economics [and the daughter of an Hungarian Jew, “Lord” Nicholas Kaldor], notes that a “pan-EU politics” is needed to replace destructive “national interests.” However, Kaldor happily notes, Johnson is Britain’s Donald Trump and therefore is doomed to fail.

Still, the EU could be better: Germany could pay more; Europe could accept more Muslim refugees; and an aging Europe can be transformed with perhaps hundreds of millions of immigrants from the Third World, “decades of intense migration,” for a glorious economic future of prosperity and creativity.

Oddly, Kaldor did not demand massive Muslim immigration into Israel.

Jewish writer and dissident Gilad Atzmon frankly admitted that the Brexit vote was a White working class rebellion against the Jewish oligarchy that rules Britain and the West generally:

Immigration and multiculturalism (that is; the ideology designed to suppress expression of chauvinism) are integral to cultural Marxist ideology. Britain, like the rest of the West, has been subject to an invasive and brutal paradigm designed to vitiate the working class. Flooding Britain with immigration was a conscious political act pushed by the Jewish left and the Jewish lobby. This is explainable. Jews have good reason to be fearful of the working classes. Historically, it has been the working classes that turned against the Jews. Breaking society into fragmented and diverse segments is transparently a Jewish left interest. When a society is broken into a manifold of tribes and identities, the Jews become merely one tribe amongst many.

National Alliance Chairman William White Williams said yesterday that the Brexit success is “encouraging for White separatists,” adding that

Brexit was driven by nationalism and rejection of non-White refugees flooding into Great Britain. Those urging Great Britain to leave the EU are vilified as “racist scum.” Sound familiar?

Responsible Whites who naturally prefer to live among their own kind will eventually vote to “exit” the borderless, raceless global plantation when given the opportunity to choose “leave” or “stay.”

There is no doubt that opposition to racial replacement migration was the main factor in the British people’s rejection of the EU. Nigel Farage, who spearheaded the Brexit campaign, certainly thought so: His campaign used a poster — for which he was reported to the police under Britain’s Jew-created “hate speech” laws — using nothing but a photograph showing a huge mass of Syrian invaders pouring into Europe, along with the words “Breaking Point: We must break free of the EU and take back control of our borders.”

The Brexit campaign's "Breaking Point" poster
The Brexit campaign’s “Breaking Point” poster

The controlled media try to convince us that we are alone in our concern for the survival of our race. They tell us that, except for a scurrilous lot of evil “haters” and “neo-Nazis” who are mostly mentally ill or criminals, almost no one opposes their happy rainbow world of “diversity,” racial mixing, and the worship of Jewish frauds, con men, and war criminals. The great value of Brexit — and, for that matter, the rumblings of racial feelings and nationalism released by the Trump campaign, is that it proves beyond any doubt that we are not alone. Half the people are already halfway there — they don’t want a borderless world; they know that some immigrants are distinctly undesirable and should be excluded if not expelled; they know there’s a huge difference between a Somalian and an Irishman; and, in the privacy of the voting booth they voted for Brexit. Our enemies are very, very afraid of what else they might vote for — and even more so, what they might do — if given the chance and appropriate encouragement. And knowing that you are not alone — that you are part of something larger than yourself, part of an unstoppable movement for greatness and virtue and excellence and cultural renaissance beyond anything we’d hoped for — is encouraging beyond words. Brexit did that.

But Brexit doesn’t change the fact that the enemies of our race still control the major media in America, Britain, and the entire West. It doesn’t take away a single pound or dollar from the fraudulent financial infrastructure that pours our wealth into the Jews’ coffers every day — or take away their power to buy laws and politicians like Hillary Clinton buys pancake makeup. It doesn’t stop the implacable determination of our enemies to commit genocide against us, nor does it substantially take away their power to import millions of racial aliens into our nations — which you may be assured they will continue to do until we have the power, the organization, and the fanatical determination needed to stop them.

If Brexit could possibly have stopped even one of the things I have just mentioned, you may be assured that it would never have been allowed to be put on the ballot. We are engaged in a fight for survival against enemies who intend to kill us. The ballot box is not now — and can never be — the way to victory in such a war. But the enemies of our race miscalculated when they decided to stop the rise of the race-conscious and at one time Jew-conscious British National Party (BNP) — which polled as many as 750,000 votes in one election and had sent representatives to the European Parliament — by funding the “soft nationalist” non-racial Jew- and Muslim-friendly Nigel Farage and his UK Independence Party (UKIP) in order to take away BNP support. The former head of the BNP, Nick Griffin, says that that miscalculation will bring forth a tidal wave of nationalism (he doesn’t name the power behind the BBC’s push for racial replacement — but we know what is meant):

When an organisation as powerful as the BBC decides to interfere with the democratic process, and cynically tries to manipulate the people who fund it, the scheme brings into operation the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Last night, that Law came into force. The BBC only wanted to stop the British National Party from winning four or five seats in the European Parliament. To do so they gave Nigel Farage a licence to be a populist rebel.

In 2004, 2009 and 2010, the BBC decided to promote Nigel Farage and Ukip as a way to block the “ghastly people” of the BNP. But those apparently successful attempts to subvert the democratic process have now has rebounded on them to the nth degree.

There would have been no referendum without a victorious Farage. No victorious Farage without BBC support. No BBC support for Farage without the threat of the BNP. And no threat from the BNP without the sacrifice and courage of about 1,000 activists. That shows just how much difference ‘ordinary’ people can make at crucial moments in history.

[T]he Unintended Consequence of the BBC’s undemocratic meddling will go far beyond Great Britain. The echoes of the resulting lion’s roar will trigger political earthquakes not just in Westminster and Brussels, but over the next two or three years in Paris, Berlin, Denmark and a dozen other European capitals.

The BBC thought they had come up with a cunning plan to stop a small party of radical nationalists giving voice to the legitimate but Politically Incorrect concerns of England’s forgotten working class. Instead, they have started the chain-reaction demolition of the entire European Union.

The result is a massive blow for the freedom of all the nations of Europe. It will also throw a massive spanner in the works of the Brussels machinery of confrontation against our brothers and sisters in Russia. The looming threat of war just receded, and Peace has taken a big step forward.

Brexit is encouraging. And the spirit of Brexit is contagious: In Sweden, those who want to leave the EU now outnumber those who want to stay. In France, Italy, and the Netherlands, there are now organized demands for Brexit-like referenda on leaving the union.

But Brexit and Brexit-like referenda are far from enough. We need a “Whexit” — a White Exit from the Jewish noose that is now being tightened around our necks.

We need citizenship laws based on membership in our race — the White race. We need immigration laws and border security designed to keep our nations White — forever. We need social systems designed to keep our birth rates high enough to ensure the health and expansion of our people, and we need policies designed to ensure that the quality of each succeeding generation is higher than the last. We not only need an immediate end to all non-White immigration, but we need to send all non-Whites back to where they came from with all possible speed. We need to permanently stop the transfer of our wealth to the Jewish overclass and the brown underclass. We need an immediate return of the wealth stolen from our people through the fractional reserve banking scam and innumerable other Jewish swindles. We need laws ensuring that our mass media are in our own hands and not in the hands of any alien elite, and guaranteeing that any would-be oligarch attempting to promote the destruction of our race — or the perversion of the natural, healthy sexuality that we need for the continued life of our people — is stripped of his assets and sent to a place from which he can never return. In short, we need exclusive White living space and a government answerable to us alone.

We have a long, hard road ahead of us. But with determination and a “never give up” spirit, success is possible. We must not slacken in our efforts.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at and You can join and support us by visiting — or write to National Alliance, Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 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 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to never give up.

Listen to the broadcast
Previous post

Huge Invader Riots in Calais: "It's Like the Walking Dead"

Next post

"Anti-Semitic": Just Another Word for "Correct"


  1. NR
    25 June, 2016 at 3:58 pm — Reply

    I am all for a Europe united in spirit. A Europe where Europeans can work and live in each country, to learn and enrich. Harmonisation of rules, products, or processes is fine as long as it benefits all and adds to the European strength. A Europe where individual countries have friendly relationships to each other, and where each country keeps its sovereignty.

    The current EU is nothing of the sort. Their aim is not Europe, but internationalism, and (racial) destruction of Europe. The ghastly influx of a million invaders in just a few months time, welcomed by the EU, might have been the trigger for the people to start thinking.

    Brexit has put a dent in the EU, but did not kill it of course. Hopefully it will initiate people to free themselves from their psychological bondage to PC thinking, fed to them the past 50 years.

    Congratulations to the British!

  2. Ernst
    25 June, 2016 at 6:02 pm — Reply

    I agree with absolutely every word in your comment, NR!

  3. Anthony Collins
    25 June, 2016 at 10:37 pm — Reply

    This is an excellent and inspiring ADV program.

    In What Is a Nation?, Ernest Renan famously said that a nation is “a daily plebiscite.” Perhaps it may be said that the White nations of the future will be the creations of a daily plebiscite — one in which White men and women consciously choose a future for their race, not by casting ballots, but by working ceaselessly and conscientiously to create a future for their people, to build White communities, to resist and destroy the anti-White system that exploits and oppresses their people, and to ultimately establish a healthy White state and society.

    We can’t win if we leave things up to elections and referendums, to mistakes on the part of our enemies, to the law of unintended consequences, or to miracles. We can’t win if we restrict ourselves to proxy measures in favor of our own racial interests. We can’t win if we dare not confront the problems facing us — if we dare not even name the problem-makers responsible for the problems — for fear of being all kinds of names by anti-White racists, haters, bigots, liars, crackpots, criminals, perverts, and traitors.

    Time is against us. But we can make time work for us, simply by making good use of the time available to us. We can make good use of what the ancient Greeks referred to as chronos — time considered in its expanse — and kairos — the opportune or critical time in which to do something. If we make good use of chronos, we will be increasingly able to make good use of kairos. By working conscientiously, we can increase our capabilities, and by increasing our capabilities, we can exploit and expand our opportunities. We can effectively use what Friedrich Nietzsche called “the capital of human wit and will.” And if we do things right, we can tap into what is surely the greatest fund of such capital in existence, that possessed by the White race as a whole. As Kevin Alfred Strom notes above, although the controlled media would have us believe otherwise, we’re not alone.

    • 26 June, 2016 at 11:47 am — Reply

      Most Whites who think like you do, Anthony, unfortunately are alone. Their collective strength is atomized. Until they organize for a purpose, that is. That’s where our National Alliance comes in. That’s why Ms Heidi and her White-hating friends want the National Alliance “ended.”

      • Anthony Collins
        28 June, 2016 at 5:34 am — Reply

        I think that an important measure of White nationalist organizations and activism should be their effectiveness in establishing cultural and social capital, and in cultivating civic courage among members and supporters.

        I recently considered citing, in response to a commentator who appeared to endorse “lone wolf” activism, the following words from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

        “To strike out boldly, a person has to be ready for that battle, waiting for it, and has to understand its purpose. . . . To strike out boldly, a person has to feel that his rear is defended, that he has support on both his flanks, that there is solid earth beneath his feet.” (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, trans. Thomas P. Whitney [New York: Harper and Row, 1974], vol. 1, pp. 503-4.)

        To fight effectively, we must fight collectively, not individually. But we can fight collectively only if we as individuals feel that our rear is defended, that we have support on both our flanks, that there is solid earth beneath our feet.

        One can recognize the situation for what it is and feel unable to do anything effective — not because one is cowardly, lazy, stupid, or hopelessly incompetent, but rather because one can only do so much, one’s ignorance and inexperience condemns one’s actions to be ineffectual, and one’s isolation condemns one’s efforts to ephemerality and failure. The learning curve is steep and both the risks and the costs of failure are formidable.

        It’s like one needs to climb a cliff, but one doesn’t have the knowledge, skills, and confidence necessary to do this, and what is physically possible is psychologically impossible. The things one needs to climb the cliff don’t come naturally and aren’t readily available.

        Although I despise the neoconservative Victor Davis Hanson, I think the following passages from chapter 8 of his book Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power (New York: Anchor Books, 2001) are worth pondering:

        “From the Greeks onward, Westerners have sought to distinguish moments of individual courage and obedience to leaders from a broader, more institutionalized bravery that derives from the harmony of discipline, training, and egalitarian values among men and officers. Beginning with the Hellenic tradition, Europeans were careful to organize types of purported courage into a hierarchy, from the singular rashness of bold individual acts to the cohesive shared bravery along a battle line — insisting that the former was only occasionally critical to victory, the latter always.

        “Herodotus, for example, after the battle at Plataea (479 B.C.) noted that the Spartans did not bestow the award of valor to Aristodemus, who rushed out from the formation in near suicidal charges to stab away at the Persians. Instead, the Spartans gave the prize to one Posidonius, who fought alongside his fellow hoplites in the phalanx bravely but ‘without any wish to be killed’ (9.71). Herodotus goes on to imply that Aristodemus had not fought with reason, but as a berserker to redeem his sullied reputation incurred from missing out on the glorious last stand at Thermopylae the summer before.

        “The Greek standard of courage is inextricably tied to training and discipline: the hoplite is to fight with cold reason, not from frenzy. He holds his own life dear, not cheap, and yet is willing to offer it for the polis. His success in battle is gauged not entirely on how many men he kills or how much personal valor he displays, but to the degree his own battleworthiness aids the advance of his comrades, the maintenance of order in defeat, or the preservation of the formation under attack.

        “This emphasis on the sanctity of the group was not just a Spartan ethos, but a generally held code throughout the Greek city-states. Frequently in Greek literature we hear that same theme of group cohesion among average soldiers — all citizens can be good fighters if they dedicate themselves to the defense of their peers and culture at large. In Thucydides’ second book the Athenian general Pericles reminds the Assembly during his funeral oration that truly brave men are not those berserkers who are in ‘evil circumstances and thus have the best excuse to be unsparing of their lives.’ Such men, he says, ‘have no hope of better days.’ Rather, the truly courageous are those ‘to whom it makes an enormous difference if they suffer disaster’ (Thucydides 2.43.6).

        “We hear throughout Greek literature of the necessity of staying in rank, of rote and discipline as more important than mere strength and bravado. Men carry their shields, Plutarch wrote, ‘for the sake of the entire line’ (Moralia 220A). Real strength and bravery were for carrying a shield in formation, not for killing dozens of the enemy in individual combat, which was properly the stuff of epic and mythology. Xenophon reminds us that from freeholding property owners comes such group cohesion and discipline: ‘In fighting, just as in working the soil, it is necessary to have the help of other people’ (Oeconomicus 5.14). Punishments were given only to those who threw down their shields, broke rank, or caused panic, never to those who failed to kill enough of the enemy.

        “Similarly, there is nothing but disdain for gaudy tribal fighters, loud yelling, or terrifying noise if such show is not accompanied by the discipline to march and stay in rank. ‘Images don’t inflict wounds,’ Aeschylus says (Seven Against Thebes, 397-99). Thucydides has the Spartan general Brasidas, in his attack against Illyrian villagers, sum up the early Western contempt for tribal warfare:

        “‘They hold terror in the onset of their attack for those who have no experience with them. They are indeed dreadful looking due to their sheer numbers; the very din of their yelling is intolerable; and they create an image of terror even in their empty brandishing of their weapons. But they are not what they seem when it comes time to fighting hand-to-hand with those who can endure such threats. Since they have no regular battle order, they are not ashamed to abandon any position once they are hard pressed; and since both fleeing and attacking are thought to be equally honorable, their courage cannot ever really be tested. . . . Such mobs as these, if one will only withstand their first charge, will only make a boast of courage from afar with threats. But for those who give in to them, they pursue right on their heels, eager to display courage when the situation appears safe.’ (4.126.5-7)

        “The Zulus were far more prone than the Illyrians to press home the attack against solid ranks; nevertheless, Thucydides’ general contrast between yelling and spectacle versus holding firm in a line — ‘regular battle order’ — is relevant to the Anglo-Zulu War. Those soldiers in both wars who could drill in formation, accept and pass on orders, and recognize a central chain of command were more likely to advance, stay put, and retreat in unison and formation. Across time and space such a systematic rather than haphazard movement of men proves the more effective in killing the enemy.”

        Hanson then discusses Aristotle’s views:

        “Aristotle, typically so, was the most systematic of Greek thinkers in dissecting the nature of courage and its relationship to self-interest, obedience, and discipline. He reaches almost the same conclusions as other Greek thinkers in explaining why certain types of bravery are preferable and lasting than others — and inseparable from the notion of the state and a trust in its government. In his careful analysis of five types of military bravery, Aristotle gives precedence to civic courage, which amateur citizen soldiers alone possess, due to their fear of cowardice before their commonwealth and fellow citizens and their desire for recognition of virtue that such public bodies offer to selfless men. ‘A man,’ Aristotle notes in echoing Pericles, ‘should not be brave because he is forced to be, but because courage is itself a noble thing’ (Nicomachean Ethics 3.8.5).

        “Aristotle also recognizes a second apparent courage, that of better-trained or superior-equipped soldiers who can afford to be brave because they hold material advantages. But he warns us that such purportedly courageous men are not really so: once their transitory advantages cease, they are the likely to flee. Aristotle also acknowledges a third type of apparent bravery often mistaken for true courage, that of the berserker, who due either to pain, frenzy, or anger fights without reason and without regard for death — or the welfare of his peers. This, too, is a transitory courage that can flee when the spirit of audacity resides.

        “Nor do Aristotle’s fourth and fifth categories, those respectively of the blind optimist and of the ignorant, meet the criteria of courageousness. Their war spirit can be based on erroneous perceptions and is thus ephemeral. Some men are brave because they have carefully gauged the odds to be in their favor; but such fighters can be either mistaken in their assessment of the battlefield or unaware that advantage is fickle and prone to change in seconds. In either case their courage is not rooted in values and character, much less is it a product of a system, and thus neither lasting nor always dependable in the heat of battle.

        “By the same token the ignorant fight well only because they are under the mistaken impression that the advantage is with them; they flee when they gain knowledge of their real danger. Like the optimist, the unaware reflect a relative courage, not an absolute value. Plato in his dialogue Laches makes the same point when Socrates argues that true courage is the ability of a soldier to fight and stay in rank, even when he knows the odds are against him — in contrast to the apparent hero who battles bravely only when all the advantages are on his side.”

        Hanson later writes:

        “As Aristotle also pointed out, the Western emphasis on defensive cohesion, closely associated with drill and order, puts the highest premium on maintaining the integrity of a position or formation. All codes of military justice in the West clearly define cowardice first as running from formation or abandoning rank, regardless of the situation, not as a failure to kill particular numbers of the enemy. If an Aztec warrior found prestige in overwhelming and capturing a string of noble prisoners, a Spanish harquebusier or pikeman was heralded for keeping his place in line and supporting the cohesion of the line or column as it rather anonymously mowed down the enemy. In the context of the Zulu wars the British, like the Zulus, possessed a method of attack and a predictable manner of fighting. But the British system accentuated formation, drill, and order, and called courageous those who upheld those very values. In an abstract sense, soldiers who fight as one — shoot in volleys, charge on order as a group, retire when ordered, and do not pursue rashly, prematurely, or for too long — defeat their enemies.”

        Civic courage, then, is the most valuable form of courage; it is the most difficult to create and maintain, but once it is created it is the most reliable, the most resilient, the most rational, the most sublime, and the most potent form of courage. It gives a backbone to both violent and non-violent forms of activism, and it obviously requires a high level of cultural and social capital.

  4. Anthony Collins
    26 June, 2016 at 1:26 am — Reply

    I notice that Kevin Alfred Strom euphemistically described Brittney Cooper as “a generously proportioned Black woman.” In other words, she’s a melanized Heidi Beirich.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.