Both these people believe they are American Indians, but DNA testing would reveal the same thing that the eye reveals -- that the woman on the right has far more Indian blood than the man on the left.


Hello, welcome to American Dissident Voices, I'm your host, Shaun Walker.

About 10 days ago I returned a phone call to a reporter, Ann Harmann, who works for the New York Times. She called the National Alliance to get our take on a story she is working on. We get a lot of phone calls from reporters, for many different topics. I believe I can usually tell by the end of the phone call if they plan on using the interview for the story. Now, I understand that many times the reporters can't get a story in the paper. I understand when deadlines are not met, or the story goes cold. But, there is also a certain condition where a reporter doesn't seem to be getting the sought after information to fit with their angle of the interview. In these interviews, the person doing the interview doesn't become rude, but rather they disagree a lot and they will offer phrases to clarify. I've done hundreds of interviews and it isn't difficult to tell when a reporter is going to do a "hatchet-job" article, as those reporters are usually just as nice as could be. On a few occasions the soon-to-be hatchet-job articles do slip, with a very odd or rude question. But, about 95% of the time, they just ask simple questions, just wanting to get the basics. Those hatchet-jobs are already written before the interview and they just want to add a name to the blanks. Those interviews usually are written in such a manner, that they are not actually writing anything libelous, but rather, just skirting along the edge of libel and quoting the standard two Jew media sources, who offer wild and unsubstantial information.

There is another issue with interviews. There are two groups, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and once in a while they will be really creative and call the Simon Wiesenthal Center to get some really objective opinions. It seems that whenever a reporter calls the National Alliance to discuss a political topic, they are forced to also call the ADL and SPLC and get a few quotes from them to put at the end of the interview in the attempt to reduce the impact of the interview. I've inquired about this tactic to about 100 reporters now. About half say they don't plan on interviewing the ADL or SPLC and they don't. The other half admits that they will and, say they need to, because they want to be "fair" and offer "balance" to the story. To these reporters I always ask the same basic question, which is: do they plan on calling the National Alliance any time they interview a Negro or Jewish group, to maintain this same fairness? So far, in 100% of the times I've asked that question, the reporters admit that they will not. As one particularly honest Liberal told me, the "Black and Jewish Civil Rights people had won the right to be interviewed on their own accord and not to be scrutinized by an opposing, critical viewpoint." I already knew that this was what was going on, but it is nice to hear a liberal reporter openly and honestly explain their bias to me.

Oh, one other point is with the Conservatives. Dr. Pierce once told me that he was never contacted by newspaper or magazines which are touted as being "Conservative." This was because when they are compared to the National Alliance, these publications would be revealed as being actually quite liberal on the most important issues. I remember one time I was light-heartedly arguing with Dr. Pierce on this issue. I disagreed with him, saying that groups like the NRA and the John Birch Society must have discussed the topic of race or immigration once in a while. Dr. Pierce agreed and even had some articles in his library where the John Birch Society wrote articles attacking the National Alliance by name, but these same reporters never bothered to contact Dr. Pierce. This conversation I had with Dr. Pierce was light-hearted, so I'm still not sure he was totally serious when he said that he was never interviewed by those big, mainstream, "Conservative" publications, or if he just meant it was very rare. But in the three and a half years since Dr. Pierce's death, not one of those publications has contacted us. And, I understand that we would really steal the thunder away from those kosher-conservative types. We get plenty of reporters from the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and other big, liberal newspapers. They are biased against us, but do not feel that we can co-opt their message.

I've had many well-meaning racial supporters ask me to try to appear on the Rush Limbaugh show. They don't understand that Rush Limbaugh is in bed with the Jews and would sooner move to Israel, than help build a White separatist nation. So, I really don't expect to talk to too many reporters that are perceived to be "right-wing."

But, this lady Ann Harmann, was really quite comfortable talking to me. The reason she called was a story she was researching and she thought she had a good angle. She sounded like a true ideological leftist. She might have received her degree at UC Berkley or New York City College. She was pleasant enough, but about halfway through the interview, I felt I ruined her angle and lost the story. I might be wrong. She can always "arrange" the story in such a manner that what I said is not included. This is a common tactic with reporters. They just want to use the name of the National Alliance in their news article and state that they contacted us. They don't use any of the actual interview other than our name. But, this reporter from the New York Times was quite different.

She called because she was writing a story about the fact that racial identification is now very easy and available in the form of DNA testing. She didn't realize that this had been available for about 30 years or more. She was interested in what the National Alliance had to say about this. The way she worded it was something like this.

NYT: "Now that the technology exists and has now become affordable to check a person's racial make-up, how do we feel about this?

SW: "Yes, this is great. It isn't new, but it certainly is becoming more affordable, widespread and increasing in accuracy."

NYT: "So, you admit you know about this new technology? So, how does your group, the National Alliance come to grips with this?"

SW: "We are very excited about this. I hope it becomes more socially accepted and practiced. Now, even adopted people can find out their true racial identity."

NYT: "But, why would you like this? Now anyone, even the people in your own organization can be tested for their racial background and find out what their racial make-up really is."

SW: "Yes, that's great. We really do need to have proper screening for such an important matter."

NYT: "You mean you plan on testing your members for their racial background?"

SW: "That would be good to do and we might do that one day for certain members. We do own a lab and I've worked in that field and have done those types of tests many times. It's really not difficult to do, but the chemicals are a bit cost prohibitive. But, it is something we would like to have available."

NYT: "But, why would you want such a thing? If you found out the different racial backgrounds that your members are comprised of, how would that help you?"

SW: "Well, if they had more than one racial background, then they would immediately become past-tense members. That would be the most accurate manner to weed-out the bad blood. But, I don't think you understand that most people that look White really are 100% White."

NYT: "You're not afraid that your members are made up of many races?"

SW: "No, why would they be? When America was founded, it was with the greatest desire for racial purity. We are one of the few countries that codified our laws to be races-specific from the very beginning. Even the supreme law of our land, the US Constitution says right in the beginning that you must be White. This wasn't something new, as all the states had already had existing state laws that regulated the racial stock of people allowed to be franchised as citizens. So, back when we were a British Colony, up to 1976, the US states required a marriage license. A marriage license was only issued to people that were racially legal. So, up to about 30 years ago, the government agencies enforced the race purity for the most part."

NYT: "Well, there were mixed-race children born out of wedlock."

SW: "True, and about five percent of all children have a biological father that is not the one that their mother tells them. Actually, the highest amount of this hanky-panky is in the Boston area and the lowest is in Utah; something with those Irish milkmen in Boston. So, you're right. Therefore, this is great that people can now check to see who their father really is, and what their racial make-up is."

NYT: "But, this all doesn't make any sense. I'm calling because there are now genetic tests available that allow people to show what their different racial make-up is. How can this be helpful to a racist organization like yours?"

SW: "Actually with the advancement in molecular biology, these tests are all done on the DNA itself, on the genome. So, with each race having their own unique DNA and with more and more places that offer this sort of testing, this will bring the truth to light, in a mainstream manner. This is absolutely necessary for our organization."

NYT: "Why would this be necessary for you? I don't understand how this can even help you."

SW: "Because, we say that all races are different because of our biological inheritance. If we conduct tests on IQ differences with different racial groups and we get data that shows bi-modal or multi-modal results, then we need real biological science to back up our premise. It would destroy our ideological position if there weren't unique racial markers in our genome. If it were impossible to show different genomic gene pools with the different races, then this would greatly collaborate with the liberal dogma that the different races are just a social construct, not biologically separate."

NYT: "How can that be proven? What tests can show such a thing?"

SW: "All you need is one mental aptitude test, similar to college entrance exams or military ASVAB tests followed by one of these biological tests that screen from racial markers."

NYT: "What could this prove?"

SW: "We say the races are different. We can have a room full of different people from pure races and mixed races. We can have them given a mental test to measure their IQ. They can be assigned a coded identity. They can then have a simple DNA test from saliva. These tests can then be scored and each scored assigned to the DNA of the same coded identity. In such an unbiased test, the exact same results will show, which proves the ideological position of the National Alliance. Even the mixed people, of Black-White, will score as mixed people."

NYT: "How could such a fantasy test prove anything?"

SW: "It's not a fantasy. It is a theoretical test, very easy to carry out. What it will prove is that the DNA of different people is unique to their racial stock and that those racial stocks have race-designated IQ levels."

NYT: "How could such a test help the National Alliance?"

SW: "Because if it were not possible to do such a test, than our entire biologically-based ideology would completely unravel. There must be a scientifically discernible test, which can be reproduced, again and again, all over the world, and yield the same results, which shows that races are different. If there was no possible way to detect racial differences with the DNA, then we would be completely wrong. But, as it is, these racial tests are become widespread and commercialized. The existence of these tests proves that there are racial differences, and that race is not formed by the environment in which an individual is raised."

NYT: "I still don't see how this could help your organization."

SW: "The National Alliance and what we believe has gone against the grain. We have stated that the races are different from a biological level and that the environment will not change the DNA coding which makes us who we are. These tests prove that the color of your skin is much more than skin-deep. These tests prove the veracity of the racial worldview: that skin color is a good indicator of race. It might not be the color of a person skin that makes them what they are, but the based-pair sequence of their DNA does make them what they are."

This is not an exact transcript of the phone interview, but it is close enough. The point is, this lady was so brainwashed by modern-day liberalism, which she couldn't see outside the box. She heard about a racial test and she must have had some crazy notion that we are all mixed raced people, some just darker than others. She thought that the tests, which are becoming popular and more ready available, would prove to embarrass to the National Alliance.

The fact is I did racial testing on myself back when I was in college at UC San Diego. We had a Dutch professor that told us he could get some racial markers if any of the students wanted to do these tests on ourselves. I remember that day distinctly. I said to a student right beside me: "Good God, did the professor really just say we could all test our race in lab next week?" I felt that suddenly the Heavens opened up and smiled down on me.

We used a salt-water solution to rinse our mouths, and extracted the DNA from that via centrifugation. We did a PCR reaction with the DNA, ran this out on a simple gel-electrophoresis and checked the bands for the distinct racial markers. About 20 of us in the class did this test. Everyone found out that we were exactly what our parents told us what were. No racial disaster that day. But, now we all had the scientific proof of our race in front of us.

I really do feel sorry for this lady at the New York Times. She, along with millions of other, unsuspecting people, has fallen victim to the Jew-led disinformation campaign on racial reality. I actually think I made this poor reporter think about the topic of race in a manner that made her feel uncomfortable.

I'm sure that there are millions of blond-haired, blue-eyed liberals, who would become distraught with such a test. These are the people that like to tell everyone that their grandpa was Tonto and they can hear Buffalo when they put their ear to the ground. These people really, REALLY need a racial screening test to shatter their illusions.

For they, just like the liberal reporter from the New York Times, actually believe it is trendy to claim some sort of non-White ancestry. They think that they are somehow showing their solidarity with the downtrodden, or something like that.

Actually, when one thinks about it, what they actually need is some psychiatric help, because who in their right mind would actually want to be a Negro? Hell, even the Negroes don't really want to be Negroes.

Don't laugh, it's true: why do you think Negroes artificially straighten their hair? Hair straightening chemicals are a multimillion dollar industry in America, Europe and Africa, where millions and millions of Negroes use quite dangerous chemicals to physically alter their appearance, so as to look less Negroid.

A while ago, out of curiosity, I picked up a box of hair straightener in a store. Actually, they labeled it as "hair relaxant" so as to try and hide its true function. The instructions on the box made interesting reading: many hair straightened kits come complete with gloves and eye guards, so that the user doesn't get a serious chemical spill into their mouth or eyes. Even extended contact with the skin is to be avoided, and the instructions on the box I read. It also warned that if taken internally, a doctor should be summonsed.

Now imagine that: Negroes are prepared to take serious medical risks in order to look as less Negroid as possible. If that doesn't tell the liberals something, then nothing will. There is even a full-color monthly magazine called Black Hair that unravels the mysteries of Negro hair.

Skin lightener is another good indicator of this: skin lightening chemicals are common all over the world as well, and especially common in India, where one's social status is largely determined by the shade of one's skin. Now, if the non-Whites of the world were not fundamentally unhappy with the way they are, they would not use hair straighter and skin lightener. Their very actions betray their intentions.

Yet issues like this are missed by liberals such as the New York Times reporter. The real truth is that race is a biological reality, and not some wild illusion. Once they realize this, they will then need a subscription to National Vanguard magazine to learn that it is not just OK to be White, but it is great to be White.

This is Shaun Walker, for the White race.