American Dissident VoicesAudioKevin Alfred StromRadio

Our Evolutionary Morality

American Dissident Voices broadcast of July 14, 2018

This week we revisit a classic ADV program that goes to the core of why we fight for White survival.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

TO CREATE AND PROPAGATE a true and unshakable moral basis for the survival of our race is the most fundamental task of the National Alliance.

If we were to, say, elect a few pro-White politicians or repeal a few anti-White laws — as difficult as those propositions would be these days — but we just continued along with establishment Liberal morality or establishment Conservative morality, or the morality of the major churches — we would have no real, lasting effect. All our efforts would, in a few decades or years, be gone with the wind. Eventually, some temporary situation or persuasive politician would reverse all that we had done.

All our work would be for nothing because the values and morals of our people are the wrong ones. If our standard of morality is “happiness,” or “what would Jesus do,” or “the greatest good for the greatest number,” or “liberty,” then there is really no reason for the White race to survive. We might as well pass from the face of the Earth.

The morality accepted by our people today is fractured, confused, vague, and artificial. It is our task to replace it with true morality. And true morality is now, and always has been, the morality of group survival.

Morality was born, in a sense, the instant that the first self-replicating molecule came into existence. From that moment forward, some actions of the new living beings would lead to increase and further evolution, other acts (they weren’t choices yet, therefore the “in a sense”) to decrease and possibly extinction. With the rise of consciousness, a more complex morality was born, involving real moral choices though still strongly guided by instinct. As our imaginations — and the priestly class — elaborated human morality, our way was sometimes lost. Something besides our survival was elevated to the highest value.

As the writer David Sims tells us, “Morally speaking, a flaw is anything that works contrary to survival. In any proper moral system, survival has the highest value. Why? Because nothing matters to the dead. Because neither truth, nor justice, nor freedom, nor prosperity have any value at all to extinct groups. Because only to something alive may anything else be good. If a moral system gives to anything but survival the highest place of value, sooner or later a conflict will arise between survival and whatever that other thing is.”

If you want to be an agent to restore true morality to our people, you must understand certain things. The first is the evolutionary nature of life.

Life is ever-evolving, ever-changing.

Evolution is real. Evolution is not only real, it is a fundamental, necessary, aspect of life — in fact, without evolution, living things as we know them could not exist.

And racial divergence and separation are themselves essential parts of evolution. Without racial separation, therefore, there could be no life at all. Does this sound like an extreme conclusion, unwarranted by the evidence? Is it contrary to science and to the morals held by all good people? Or is it a simple truth, the realization of which can change the minds and hearts of our people, and put them on the right path once again? Let’s find out.

Evolution is real

“Without racial separation there could be no life at all.”

To understand that idea, we must first understand that evolution is real. It’s astounding that a century and a half after Darwin, this is still controversial. So much nonsense is written on the subject that I think the best way to approach it is from an entirely new angle. As I wrote earlier last year:

A creationist might not acknowledge that he is related to a chimp, but he probably would admit that he is related to his own mother. “After all,” he might say, “obviously I share 50 per cent. of my genes with her.”

But that estimate is wildly off the mark. Actually, he shares more than 99.9 per cent. of his genes with her — because, in addition to the obvious one-half direct ancestry, he shares almost all of his ancestry with her in common, because both his parents share almost identical common ancestry too. Go back a few dozen centuries, and they’re practically all the same people.

Common ancestry is the only rational explanation, and it is the full explanation, for the near-total agreement between the gene-patterns of father, mother, and child.

Common ancestry is also the only reasonable explanation for the astonishingly high degree of genetic similarity between humans and other mammals.

The genetic similarity of a man and a mouse, for example, is about 92 per cent.

It is as if you had a hypothetical 100-volume set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, with each volume consisting of 1,000 pages of very small type on onionskin paper, 100,000 pages in all — and then compared it to another, unknown, encyclopedia, and discovered that its first 92,000 pages were absolutely identical to those in the Britannica (to say nothing of the fact that the remaining 8,000 pages had a lot of similarities too).

Could that be a random coincidence? Could the two encyclopedias have just by some sort of luck, or by the very nature of encyclopedia-writing, turned out to be that similar? I don’t think so. It should be obvious to anyone not inebriated by Maury Povich, Benny Hinn, or Jack Daniels that one was derived from the other — or that both were derived from a common source.

Mice and men share so many — almost all, in fact — of our genes because we share many, many common ancestors.

Common genes equals common ancestors. That doesn’t mean we evolved from mice. But it does mean that both mice and men evolved from a common ancestor, not so long ago in the scale of geologic time. Close enough in time to make our gene-patterns 92 per cent. identical.

The percentage of genes we share with other species is a measure of how many common ancestors we share with them — and that itself is a measure of how long ago we diverged from them.

Bearing that relationship in mind, consider that we share 44 per cent. of our genes in common with fruit flies — 26 per cent. with yeast — and almost 20 per cent. in common with a grain of wheat.

That is proof — as absolute as it is possible to get in this imperfect world — that there was a time, long long ago, when our ancestors, and wheat’s ancestors, were the same species.

For even in a case where “only” the first twenty volumes of the encyclopedia — 20,000 pages — were word-for-word identical with our Britannica, who would be so foolish as to say they had no common source?

So evolution is real. Genetic similarity proves we have common ancestors with our fellow Earth creatures. Life is what it is because it evolved. But there’s more. We have to ask the question —

What is life?

Without racial separation there could be no life at all. Before we can validate that statement we need to go one step further.

The science writer Don Kaiser came up with the concept that life is evolution. No further definition is necessary. He said (emphasis mine):

The sole characteristic that ultimately distinguishes living from non-living matter is classical Darwinian evolution. Life is simply matter that evolves.

A simple analysis of the definition of life leads to the conclusion that living matter is inanimate matter that evolves. Evolution is the sole feature that differentiates living matter from non-living matter.

Consider a definition of life from the old college days:

Life is the property of a highly organized molecular complex, the stability of which is maintained by its constant utilization of energy.

It seems a bit flowery, so to simplify:

Life is organized matter self-maintained by energy utilization….

Energy utilization is essential to maintain the stability of life forms because, without it, life forms are very unstable and decompose into non-living matter. In fact, life forms are so unstable that, even with energy utilization, they all eventually die….

But wait —

Does the Definition Exclude All Non-Living Matter?

There are many examples of non-living matter maintained by their utilization of energy. Some examples are waterfalls, volcanoes, hurricanes, and stars. So, a definition of life requires something more to exclude such non-living matter. Adding something about reproduction might help:

Life is organized matter self-maintained by energy utilization and a process that reproduces its structure for self-maintained energy utilization in the future….

By specifying that life must include a reproductive process, inanimate matter like waterfalls and hurricanes are excluded. However, some scientists might argue rather convincingly that stars reproduce. To eliminate stars as living matter, a process that more faithfully reproduces itself could be added:

Life is organized matter self-maintained by energy utilization and a process that accurately reproduces its structure for self-maintained energy utilization in the future.

This simple definition seems to eliminate stars and other forms of inanimate matter….

Perfect Clones Can’t Cut It.

Any life form with a reproductive process that creates an exact copy or a perfect clone of itself would satisfy the requirement of a process that accurately reproduces itself. Such a process would always produce the same exact structure and function for energy utilization and self-maintenance in a given environment. However, in a changed environment, functional energy utilization and self-maintenance might benefit from, or even require, new structure(s).

Every Environment Changes With Time.

In order for a life form to persist through time, it must have a mechanism that provides for structural changes to function in a changed environment. Some life forms can produce exact copies or perfect clones, but most importantly, they also provide mechanisms for introducing structural changes by mutation or recombination. No life forms exist that cannot provide such changes. So, the definition of life becomes:

Life is organized matter self-maintained by energy utilization and a process that accurately reproduces its general organizational structure with a mechanism that allows for structural changes to utilize energy for self-maintenance in a changed environment.

Based on this definition of life, the sole characteristic that distinguishes living from non-living matter is a reproductive mechanism that allows for structural changes to utilize energy for self-maintenance in a changed environment.

Adaptation is Essential.

When successful structural changes to utilize energy for self-maintenance in a changed environment are produced, adaptation is said to occur. Over time, with continuously changing environments and adaptations, life forms undergo natural selection and classical Darwinian evolution. Thus, for periods of time exceeding the lifespans of individuals, the sole characteristic that distinguishes living and non-living matter is the process of Darwinian evolution. So, what is life?

Life is matter that evolves.

Most fundamentally, the definition becomes:

Life is evolution.

The two are inseparable. Given the fact that all life forms die, how do they persist through time and changing environments? Every environment harboring life forms must change, simply because of their existence, so evolution is the only way life forms can persist through time. Not only did Charles Darwin discover what makes life possible despite the fact that all life forms eventually die, he unwittingly discovered the sole feature that distinguishes living from non-living matter. Charles Darwin defined life.

Life is Evolution.

* * *

So, armed with this definition — that life is evolution — what can we conclude about my earlier claim? — Without racial separation there could be no life at all.

We have common ancestry with every living creature on this planet, if you go back far enough. So the old racialist idea of “purity” — meaning an unbroken, nearly identical lineage going “back to Adam” — was wrong from the start. Purity is the wrong word; those who used it were unaware of the ever-evolving nature of life. They were ignorant of evolution, which is a branching process; they didn’t know that all the races, varieties, subspecies, and species that ever lived are branches on one metaphorical tree — and that, going backwards in time, all the branches eventually converge into one at the root.

But at the opposite end from the root, going forward in time, they are diverging — branching apart. And the only way that new species can be born is by first going through a process of racial separation. This racial separation can be temporal, spacial, or psychological — or some combination of the three — but it must occur for evolution to happen.

All living things have gone through this process of racial separation, countless times, and they are still undergoing it. It is a natural tendency of all life. And it is ludicrous to assert that human beings are somehow exempt from it.

So racial divergence and separation are not only facts, they are also essential to the evolutionary process. Life as we know it could never have come into being without them. Now my statement should make sense to you — now you should be able to see its truth in all its simplicity and clarity: Without racial separation there could be no life at all.

All living things evolve into races, which are divided by appearance, structure, and behavior. This applies to apples and anchovies, wheat grass and wallabies, manatees and men.

This branching process is simply what life does: It evolves. It forms races. Those races separate and evolve further. Some go extinct and some become new species. This is happening — continually — to all living things.

Life could not exist without this process. One might even go so far as to say that life is this process.

Since racial separation is essential to life, I believe it is proper to say that, if anything is sacred, racial separation is sacred.

* * *

A racially mixed — part Black and part White — actor from Britain, Dudley O’Shaugnessy, recently posted this statement about racial mixing online:

“If we weren’t meant to mix, whoever put us in this earth, if we weren’t meant to mix… we would be on different planets. But we are not, we are on the same planet.”

I think O’Shaugnessy’s statement, incoherent as it is, is pretty typical of what young people are being taught today.

But what he said is the opposite of the truth. Golden eagles and fish eagles and bald eagles are all on the same planet. Were they “meant to mix”? Preposterous. They can, but they practically never do in Nature. And, if they did on any large scale, it would mean the end of these unique creatures.

Evolution, as I said, is a branching process, and, once the divergence reaches a certain point, the branches don’t recombine. Forcing them to recombine — as is being done to the European peoples today through propaganda and social policy — is unnatural, anti-life, anti-evolution, and it is also genocide.

There was a time, a million or more years ago, when a certain tribe of proto-humans became separate and ceased to mate with the sub-humans around them. Had they not done that, we would not be here today.

Nature is always forming new subspecies. They are always branching, separating, becoming new species. This is as true for grass and gazelles as it is for humans. This is natural and necessary and good. To oppose it by advocating racial mixing is the ultimate in human folly, and egotistic hubris against Nature.

* * *

So this is the core of our Cosmotheist spirituality.

The evolution of life has led to the evolution of consciousness. We are the consciousness of the Universe coming into being. The upward evolution of this consciousness, so far as our present understanding allows us to know, is our purpose. And this upward evolution can only happen through a process of racial divergence and separation.

Our spirituality is in harmony with the discipline and the discoveries of science. Our spirituality is — unlike virtually ever other faith — not only compatible with our race’s survival, but, properly viewed, it regards our survival and upward evolution as imperatives.

Armed with this understanding and this faith, we can and will change the world.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the reconstituted National Alliance membership organization, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at and Please write to us at National Alliance, Box 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 of the words of Richard Berkeley Cotten: “Freedom is not free; free men are not equal; and equal men are not free.”

* * *

Source: based on the American Dissident Voices broadcast of January 11, 2014

Previous post

The Anthrax Mystery: Solved

Next post

Nietzsche as Spiritual Warrior — The Antichrist (Part 2 of 4)

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
14 July, 2018 9:18 am

Separation is freedom in the natural world. I believe nature operates on the principle of healthy and unhealthy. It something is not right, it will perish on its own time.

Natural Selection decides who stays and who goes. Big government, big religion and crazy idealists will play no part thereof.

Adaptation — Natural Selection — Evolution

Reply to  cc
30 January, 2019 1:54 am

Is The Natural Directiion

16 July, 2018 10:48 am

If we trace evolution back to its beginnings through inference, we constantly see it branching out like an ever growing tree or river delta. The left tries to falsely claim that race means species, but it doesn’t, it means breed, and just like the animal kingdom, humans are animals as well, whether they accept that or arrogantly do not. Humans are thinking animals, animals with foresight and consciousness. No other race, but the White race is worthy of colonizing the galaxy, but we must overthrow the (((sentient parasite))) if we are going to survive here on Mother Earth.

Reply to  Drew
30 January, 2019 2:11 am

The image of the tree of evolution is just that — a partly useful image of the evolutionary process of ramification and diversification, but it is also a misleading image since there is, in fact, no persisting tree of which we, or any branch, are a part.

One may prune back an overgrown forsythia bush nearly to the ground, and in a few seasons have another overgrown forsythia bush. We cannot do the same with the “tree” of evolution. This is why all of the leveling the human family tree down to a manageable stump of cafe au lait Epsilons (as per Kalergi) is contra natura, anti-life, and profoundly immoral.

Is The Natural Direction

Max Musson
Max Musson
23 August, 2018 8:24 pm