Is the National Alliance a Jewish False Flag Operation? The Amazing Correspondence of Birdman and Kevin Alfred Strom

Assembled by John "Birdman" Bryant

Note: Kevin Strom is an officer in the National Alliance, and creator and editor of the NA's weekly broadcast and Internet letter, American Dissident Voices. Kevin refused to allow his half of the correspondence to be posted, but what he says can mostly be deduced from Birdman's letters.


[First letter to Kevin]

To: Kevin Strom
From: John Bryant
Date: May 10, 2004

Dear Kevin:

The most recent post on American Dissident Voices (8 May), which you have charge of, raised a question in my mind which one of my correspondents raised several weeks ago, namely, why are you and the National Alliance endorsing the Official Government Version of 911 which posits 'Arab hijackers'? (My correspondent cited something you had written in an ADV broadcast which showed your endorsement of the OGV -- I believe it was in the recent interview with Mark Weber.) I ask this because the most widely- accepted version of 911 among skeptical Netizens is that Arabs had no role in 911 except perhaps as patsies, and that the real perpetrators were the Israelis (and the CIA) using radio-controlled planes (the 'Home Run' system described by Joe Vialls and Carol Valentine), thus making this one more accusation against the Jews (and perhaps the most important one ever made) -- something which has been a specialty of the NA since its inception.

I am sure I don't have to tell you (but will anyway) that this raises a big red flag which suggests that the NA has been bought off by the Jews -- not completely bought off, perhaps, but at least bought off to the extent that it prevents the single most devastating crime of all time from being laid at the feet of the Jews by America's most prominent Jew-bashing group. In fact, it raises an even more profound question, namely, whether the NA is not really a 'false flag' operation which is used by the ADL and other elements of Organized Jewry as a will-o'-the-wisp for scaring contributions out of the Jew-in-the-street.

Now please don't misunderstand me -- I am not saying these things are true. But I say, Let's look at the evidence. Now I don't consider myself an expert on 911 by any means, but I do know a few things that make the Official Government Version of 'Arab hijackers' seem wildly improbable. Here are just a few points off the top of my head:

* The hijackers were supposedly seen the night before the event, drinking and carousing, and thus violating Islamic law all over the place. * After 911, a flight instruction manual in arabic was 'discovered', as was a passport issued to one of the supposed hijackers which magically survived the WTC fireball impact. * Only a short time after 911 the government 'knew' that Arabs were responsible, with no evidence apparent. * The flight training that the 'Arab hijackers' received was wholly inadequate for flying the planes that crashed into the WTC. * The 'Arab hijackers' supposedly claimed to their instructors that they didn't need to learn how to land. * The supposed cell phone conversation from one of the hijacked airlines was impossible, as proved by a certain Canadian investigator named Dewedny, who showed that cell phones could not be used from an airplane; yet the Official Government Version gave us the 'recording' of this conversation. * The government obviously was complicit in 911 (a) by failing to scramble aircraft to intercept the hijacked planes, (b) by CIA people trading zillions in options against airline stock shortly before 911, (c) by ignoring reports from FBI investigators and foreign governments that something was afoot, and (d) by BushBaby and the Secret Service reacting to 911 as if nothing were amiss amid children in a Florida classroom. All this leads to the conclusion that the Official Government Version of 911 is most probably an outrageous lie, and that 911 was a joint operation of the Israelis and the Bush administration.

I am sure that the above list could be augmented by many other observations. But the point is that the Official Government Version is an obvious lie, and yet the NA has bought into it. One explanation, as noted above, is that the NA has been bought off, and may in fact be a false flag operation designed to generate contributions for Organized Jewry. Perhaps there are other explanations, such as everybody at NA headquarters stays so high on dope that they can't think, but there are no explanations I can think of which generate much confidence for me in the NA.

Now before closing, I would like to observe that this is by no means the first time that the NA has been accused of being in bed with Organized Jewry. Another of my correspondents made this accusation to me directly a couple of years ago (and I have seen at least one similar accusation in print), on the basis that NA absorbs the contributions of movement people but never seems to do anything -- an accusation similar to that of Revilo Oliver against the John Birch Society which I have posted in the Net Losses section of my website. To this I would have to add my own observation that, having seen some of the NA handouts, I would have to rate them as totally ineffective.

Kevin, you and I have been cyberfriends for a long time, and I think that you know of my good feelings for you personally. But the matter which I am bringing up in this letter -- which didn't really hit me until your American Dissident Voices post of this Saturday -- disturbs me a lot. It is a legitimate issue that deserves a serious and detailed answer. While you aren't the biggest cheese in the NA, you are a major player, and so I think you are the one to ask about this. I hope you will respond, and I will be looking forward to seeing what you have to say.


[Correspondent Donald comments on the above letter]

My belief for the last two years is that Pierce was BOTH incompetent and bought off by Judah. He never had a real job in his life unless you consider delivering papers as a teenager to be one. (From Griffin's biography) He became a physics professor in Oregon as soon as he graduated.

[Birdman comment: I would say that being a physics prof would have to be counted a real job.]

You are correct about the incompetence of his leaflets. The average one appears to have been designed by an eight year old.

The FBI knew that Pierce got at least $100,000 and more likely $300,000 from the Matthews robbery. I think that they blackmailed him to do nothing but rail on the radio and internet. The IRS could have been easily jailed him because he paid $85,000 cash for his compound. This blackmail could have been concealed from ALL of his associates. Pierce might have decided it was better to do what he could while being blackmailed rather than nothing at all.

There has always been an FBI informant inside the compound. They retrieved the entire NA mailing list from the Pocahontas County landfill. (see FBI file on NA on their website) We must give Pierce credit for writing a lot of good stuff. However, he let all names fall into the hands of the FBI which more than counteracts his good work.


[Second letter to Kevin]

Dear Kevin:

Reducing things to their simplest terms, it looks like there are just two possible explanations for the situation: Ignorance and evil. Ignorance (not knowing that there was a credible Jew-blaming alternative to the mendacious Official Government Theory of 'Arab hijackers') seems preposterous when we are talking about the premier organization of Jew-critics; but evil (being bought off by Organized Jewry) seems an even worse explanation from your point of view, so you are evidently opting for ignorance. So I can see why you aren't happy, and why you want our correspondence to remain 'strictly private'.

But the problem is, it ISN'T strictly private. In fact, by sending copies of my letter to several friends, I suppose I was subconsciously insuring that I would not be wheedled out of posting my letter on this coming Friday's Daily Reads page. I will, of course, respect your wishes not to post YOUR letter, but I shall post my own -- this one as well as the first.

In response to specific points of your letter, I offer the following:

* You ask how being Jew-critical can be consistent with being bought off. I already answered this in my first letter: If the NA is a false flag op intended to generate contributions for Organized Jewry, it is clear that they WANT SOME criticism, but not TOO MUCH. In this case, then, Organized Jewry might tolerate, say, that Israel failed to warn the US about 911, but would NOT tolerate the criticism that they were RESPONSIBLE for for 911.

* You note in your letter that the 'most dangerous' people are the ones who are supposedly on our side but spend their time attacking other movement people. I can see your point, and I can also see it was directed at me -- you are raising the question of whether I am a 'movement disrupter' by 'attacking you'. That is a clever way to try to turn back criticism, but I think each case must be judged on its own merits, and I believe my case is meritorious.

* I have noted your call for a piece in the NA magazine to put the 'Arab hijackers' lie to rest. Perhaps one of my readers will send me (or you) something. There is tons of stuff out in cyberspace on this subject.

* I have also noted your interest in re-evaluating NA handouts. I would like to discuss this more with you a little later, but meanwhile, I will simply ask if any of my readers wish to proffer anything. -j


[Third letter to Kevin]

Dear Kevin:

What you seem to be saying in your letter is that if the charges that have been made are publicly aired, that it will wreck your life work, and that if I am a true friend, I will therefore refrain from airing them.

I have some problems with that.

First of all, I think you may remember a time a few years ago when you wrote all your friends saying you were broke, and you may remember that in response I sent you $100. Now I could be wrong, but I think that's more than most friends would do. And one other thing you may remember: You never even thanked me, until several months later I wrote you and asked if you had received what I sent.

Or to put it another way, you have absolutely no reason to question my friendship or loyalty, tho I may have some reason to question yours.

Now another problem I have with the thrust of your letter is that if you are saying that your only offense in this matter was to be ignorant concerning the falsity of the 'Arab hijacker' story, rather than having evil intent (ie, being in the pay of Organized Jewry), then I can see no reason to believe that admitting your ignorance is going to 'ruin your life work', tho of course it will obviously not look good. Certainly your ignorance (if that is what it is) seems to be shared by the NA leadership, so it hardly seems they can blame you for not knowing something that they themselves don't know. Of course maybe you still believe in 'Arab hijackers', in which case we are back to Square One.

I see that you are trying to put the onus on me by suggesting that I am not a loyal friend, that I am 'attacking' you, that I will 'wreck your life work', that I am improperly quoting your private correspondence, etc. But, as I have just shown for two of these, your accusations are essentially false, and are at most trivial distractions; for in reality the onus is on you to demonstrate that your acts were determined by ignorance and not evil intent. And this matter is not just between you and me -- you have a responsibility to the NA members to guide them properly on a matter which is at the very core of what the NA does. So I am going to throw the ball back into your court and ask you, What are you going to do to see that NA members receive proper guidance, and how are you going to demonstrate that you acted only from ignorance, not evil intent?

Now before you respond, let me propose something. If you are willing to deal forthrightly with this matter in an ADV broadcast/essay, and also in an article in your magazine, then I will be willing to hold back my letter.

What I want in the ADV/magazine essay is the following:

* A complete setting-out of the Israeli involvement in 911

* A rejection of the 'Arab hijackers' story along the lines I gave in my letter, explicitly noting that the story is an outrageous lie and that this fact proves that the government can't be trusted on this subject (or any other, for that matter)

* An explicit statement about your being mistaken and improperly informed about this matter, and how it led to some people thinking the NA was a false flag operation for Jewish interests

* A link or set of links to appropriate discussions of the Israelis and 911

Other conditions:

* A copy of your magazine in which the essay appears sent to me

* My approval of the article prior to publication

As to who writes the major article on the Israelis and 911, I suggest that John Kaminski might be a good person.

Before closing, I want to point out that my concern about your loyalty to the movement is not some kind of crazy off-the-wall notion -- rather this is a problem which crops up constantly. Look at David Irving -- he was supposedly the movement's Great Historian, and a Man of Substance and Intellect, but if you care to check my ongoing expose of Irving which appears in the Net Losses section of my website, you will see that he is one of the filthiest pieces of shit that has ever walked down the pike.

And then there is Mark Weber and the IHR cabal, who tried to destroy the movement's most effective individual, Willis Carto. Carto has exposed Weber at length in the (now-defunct) Spotlight, and there is nothing I can add (tho I also discuss Weber in the Oliver article appendix in Net Losses). I note, of course, that you interviewed Weber in a friendly manner for ADV, which was where both you and he demonstrated acceptance of the 'Arab hijacker' story. That, by itself, raises additional questions.

And then there is David Duke. I have no reason to question his loyalty, but gambling away $175,000 of contributor money is an outrageous neglect of responsibility.

And then there is the recent split in NA, which I am not well-informed on, but which again raises questions of loyalty to the movement by at least some of the individuals involved. I could go on naming people, but you get the picture: Lots of people who behave questionably, who are weak morally and vulnerable to corruption. So when I raise a legitimate question about the NA as a false flag operation, it is incumbent on you to answer that question, and not to try to deflect it by claiming that I am not a loyal friend, that I am 'destroying your lifework', etc, etc, etc.

As a final matter, I know you want to control the information I put out on all this. It is clearly an embarrassment to you. But the only thing you can control is whether I post or otherwise publish your letter. You cannot send me a letter and in that letter impose a condition of silence -- you could only do that if I agreed to it in advance. To that I would add that you claim I did not indicate my letter was part of a 'public campaign', yet I told you specifically that I had sent copies of my letter to several friends, so, as intelligent as you obviously are, you could fairly well deduce that this matter is going public. In general, you cannot control the flow of ideas or information, only their form. So stop trying. It just makes you look bad. -j


[Fourth letter to Kevin]


What I am picking up is that, by means of an (unrecorded) phone call, you want to try to bullshit your way out of this. What I get is that you want to trade on our friendship and get me to go away.

With all due respect, Kevin, the cat is out of the bag. Just deal with it the best you can.

I can assure you have not the least amount of ill-will toward you -- exactly the contrary.

This is -- potentially -- a lot bigger than both of us. If you aren't shilling for the Jews, I really don't think you have that much to worry about. But if you don't deal with it honestly and up-front, it will look bad.

If you genuinely need more time to consult with NA people or something, I can hold off posting my letter for a few days. But I don't plan to let this thing drag on and on, so if you want more time, give me a deadline.

Good luck. -j



Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *