The White Man’s Library: Conquest of a Continent

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we've got something special for you today.

This is radio renaissance and this is Paul Cursey.

But I'm joined today with Illuminary, Sam Dixon, a man who's spoken at every American

renaissance conference in the past.

And the reason we're coming to you today is, I was on the phone with Sam a couple of

weeks ago and we just started talking about a one random book and then one random conversation

turned into a veritable river, a tributary, if you will, of other books that had I read.

And I thought, you know, this is a great opportunity to have a conversation with Sam Dixon

and discuss the great books, the great canon for white individuals, for white people to

read.

And I thought, what better place than radio renaissance?

Sam, good afternoon.

Good afternoon to you.

And everybody listening.

Yeah, I mean, this is, this is going to be a really interesting podcast because we're

going to talk in the opening podcast on the great books of the, the Western white canon.

We're going to talk about Madison Grant's conquest of a continent.

But before we get to that, Sam, I want to ask you something.

You've been a lifelong lover of reading of books and why is it so important that especially

Gen X, I'm sorry, Gen Y, especially, you know, I'm a millennial.

I read a lot.

I love to read.

But we know that people are primarily engaging ideas now through Instagram videos, through

TikTok.

Why is it so important to sit down and to read some of these great books that we're going

to discuss in the series?

Well, I was not prepared for that question, so I'll have to wing it.

I think reading is a much better form of using your mind than watching videos.

The, I think when you watch, when you watch Gone with the Wind, move to cinema, you don't

have to create what Scarlet looks like, Scarlet is Vivian Lee.

When you read the book, your mind has to create what she looks like and create what Ashley

in red look like and what Tara looks like.

That's a very different thing from having both of your senses, the eye and the ear, you

know, all wrapped up in the video or something.

So I think reading is inherently better for your mind and also as an old foggy, the

plasticine era.

I like holding a book right and look back and review things because it is, I read along.

My broader sense, I think that we, we will be advantages to being in our, our cause is

it unlike the so-called norm, these are the wokesters, we, our, our set of friends is very

expensive.

Cicero is our friend, Madison Grant is our friend, our, our friends accept that, you know,

to, to antiquity.

We, we understand the need to understand the whole history of our, our civilization, our

culture because we, it's, it's, it's without that kind of understanding, we have no corporate

identity.

We, we're individuals with, I don't believe in individualism.

Well, I mean, going back, homers, our friend, the Thucydides, Herodidus, Marcus Rillius,

but most importantly, going back only a century ago to the 1920s, Madison Grant had just

published one of the most important books of the 20th century that would be passing the

Great Race.

Elp, I'm sorry, Lotharp Stoddard, who had just published the rising tide of color, those

two men, sir, were instrumental in helping pass the 1924 Immigration Act.

And I remember when I was at university in college, there were a number of books that

attacked those two men that, that I was forced to read.

And so what did I do?

I went and I read those books and I was, I was a first person at, where I went to undergrad

Sam, who had checked out the passing of the Great Race since the 1970s.

And this is, this is the mid 2000s, the first part of the decade, I'm sorry, of the

century.

Did you have this similar experience at the University of Georgia when you were an undergrad

and you started reading books that you probably never heard of or encountered?

Yes, I went down and they had those little cards and the books that showed when we were

checked them out.

And some of them, in my case, had not been checked out since the 1920s.

Incredible.

And, you know, the, most people are content to be spoon-fed, a pre-cooked ideology in

way of wicking at things.

And most people are not inquisitive.

They are not.

I only had one teacher in all of the years I spent from kindergarten all the way through

all school.

I only had one teacher, a professor, and this is actually a teacher who taught critical

thinking.

So that is she would be fired.

They would, they would not put up with someone teaching critical thinking.

You've shared a story before where you were, you encountered at an event.

I believe it might have been a, I hope you don't mind saying, but I believe it was associated

with the John Burke Society and you brought up a question of Senator McCarthy and you've

said, you know, almost reflexively, oh, well, isn't he on the wrong side of history

to paraphrase?

And somebody there, a chastity, would you mind sharing that story?

Well, the personal correctives, you know, it was not a John Burke Society meeting.

I was never a member of the John Burke Society.

You know, I knew many people who were and they, they did a great service in the American

opinion books towards, which is a, a, a fit-noted one, a history of our movement that needs to

be recalled.

You couldn't get books anywhere when I was, when I was young.

Even moderate conservative books were banned.

Only one type of book was available in the stores, under one type of book was prescribed

to the schools.

It was completely one-sided and the John Burke Society opened up, well over a hundred

American opinion bookstores all over America and they opened one in Atlanta and I read

about it in the alternate newspaper that people were trying to start up calling it a lot

of times, which was later shut down due to an organized advertising workout.

But anyway, but to get back to your story, I always like to ask people, what, what, what

event in their lives could they identify that really caused them to become thought criminals

or to become red pill as the youngsters say today?

And in my case, it was a goldwater meeting in 1963 at Emory University.

I, I, I was not a goldwater supporter.

I, you know, I, I didn't know much about him, but my oldest brother came home and deep

dinner with the family of Georgia Tech and told me that I, some friends of his were,

were involved in this meeting that was going to be at Emory University about a mouth

who lived and he was going to go to it and what, I don't know if I want to go along, so

I did.

And they had some, some speaker that I thought was very boring and probably Russell Kirk.

I think it Russell Kirk.

But anyway, they brought up after the meeting and my brother was talking to his friends

and I went to the back of the room to, like, to look display.

And there was a person there who was very rude.

I came to know this person very, very well, a major force in my life, but he, he did, he

had not read how to win friends and influence people.

And unfortunately, I, I was very open to criticism.

But he, he spotted me as the youngest person.

The room, most people were already old like they are nowadays.

Well, nowadays it's changed, but 10 years ago, it was only old people that I'd meet.

He's, now we have a lot of young fellows.

But the, anyway, he, he came over to ask about me and he said, well, are you in school?

I said, yes, I'm in high school.

I don't have a grade or a tenth grade.

And he said, well, but, you know, tell me about you in school.

I said, do it.

He was high school, which is the most liberal high school in the States, the Emory University

high school.

So he said, well, I went there and he asked about a teacher who might have disliked

very much and we shared notes on her.

He didn't like her either.

He somehow the race issue came up and I told him that we were already being told that

the races were equal and that there was obviously untrue and that he liked that.

But then he said something about McCarthy and I said, oh, he was a bad guy.

He, you know, he accused liberals of being traders who were not.

And he, he very rudely said, oh, how'd you get that idea?

How'd you get that idea?

Where'd that come from?

And I said, well, that's why I've read in my textbooks and I've been told in school.

These are the same textbooks and teachers who are not telling you the truth about race.

And I thought about it.

I said, I said, yeah, that's probably true.

He said, but you believe what they say about McCarthy.

And so I felt kind of uneasy and embarrassed.

But he said, you know, you seem like a smart kid.

You know, you have a good grammar, you know, give a vocabulary.

But really smart people read all, read all sides of a question before they make their minds up.

They don't, they're not blotter minds.

They don't just accept what they're told.

Which is what you're doing.

He said, you've never read anything on McCarthy's side.

And so being pretty tough, I replied, well, I'd be willing to read something.

If there's something you can recommend, then he said, well, you really do that.

I said, I pretty will.

So he wrote out four titles of books.

And a few days later, I went to the head of the library in Atlanta.

And to surprise me, they had three of them.

And I checked them out.

And I was stunned when I read the real accounts of how many

communist spies were in the government.

Thanks to Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.

The efforts of the admit, not only Roosevelt's administration,

but Truman's to hide them and help them and conceal them.

And the ones who were clearly identified as communist spies,

even before we got access to the Soviet archives,

which proved that, or she, all the people of McCarthy was after were, in fact, a spy.

So anyway, I reflected on that thought, well, you know,

that guy at that meeting was right.

That they're not only lying to us about race.

They clearly had lying to us about McCarthy.

And probably we've been told why it's all the time.

And that that's what caused me to become a thought.

Do you recall what those four books were?

Was one of those Whittaker Chambers witness?

I assume.

Witnesses was one.

There was something, I think McCarthy himself wrote one about Marshall.

And I forget the other one.

Although the two, I don't remember the titles, but I wonder if one was John T.

Any of the people in the room.

This very rude person.

And I don't recommend people adopt this.

You do need to, we do need to read how to win threats and influence people.

And you don't want to bruise the egos of both people.

But he asked me, he said, have you ever heard the name Aldra His?

And I said, no, sir, I've never heard of an Aldra His.

He said, well, what is surprised you to know that he was a close friend of Elner,

Franklin Roosevelt, and worked with the government,

and that he was on the delegation that wrote the author pack,

and that he was clearly a communist spy.

And I said, well, yeah, that would surprise me.

And he said, isn't it odd that they never mentioned that name in your textbooks,

and this is ill, when she was denouncing McCarthy, never mentioned Aldra His.

And well, when I read those books, I found out who Aldra His was.

And I realized, as he said, he said, just to write context to the background,

why people would believe McCarthy, you think they'd at least mention Aldra His,

but they didn't?

No, I mean, it is stunning, because I do recall when I was,

when I was getting me to go to college, I would argue a similar book came out.

In fact, you actually debated at an AR conference, I believe, in 2002,

because it had just been released, death of the West, by pap, you can, it had just come out.

And it's interesting if you go through the index of the books that he cites.

It offers a glimpse into a different world, because he does, he does cite a lot of these

other books. That's one of the first times I came, I encountered Camp of the Saints.

You'll actually laugh at those, you being in Atlanta, in Neil Bort's book, how to argue with

liberals, or the terrible truth about liberals. It's this kind of goofy little, just, you know,

treat as, he actually says Camp of the Saints is one of the most important books to read.

So I read both of those books at the same time, death of the West, and Neil Bort's book.

For our listeners who don't know, he used to be, oh, I don't know, one of the more

influential talk show hosts out there, and the fact that he, or radio hosts, I should say,

and the fact that he said Camp of the Saints is a book you have to read,

which, you know, knowing that he's more right, libertarian, and his views,

it is fascinating to think that he would have recommended that book in the late 90s,

when that book came out, when he ruled the airways. I want to say it was 750 AM in Atlanta.

But anyways, as I started to read more and more, it's stunning, Sam, because over the past year,

I've really done a deep dive into some books that, when I called you and brought up some of these

names, you had never heard of. In fact, I was visiting you, and you had just a number of books

all around in boxes, and I was going through one of them, and I found this one book called,

a selection of some of the most interesting narratives of outrages committed by the Indians

in their wars with the white people by Archibald Loudon. And you looked at it, you're like,

what in the world is that? And it turns out that this is a book that was written in 1807

that just basically lists all of the various engagements that white people had as we were a colony

of Britain through the early portion of the 19th century before the book came out in 1807.

And it's stunning to just encounter just the wide breadth of volumes out there that

need to be dusted off and revisited, and that book is one of them.

Well, there are lots of such books, but you know, finding out the titles of them was very,

very hard to do. By the way, before we leave the subject of Neil Borgs, I want to say that I've

always had a soft spot in my heart for Neil Borgs. He wants to be a saver. When he was on the air,

I was a big figure in Atlanta journalism. I had secretly arranged a talk in Atlanta by a very

controversial person who would go unnamed. And I wanted being a young lawyer and not wanting to be

a doc, as I eventually was. I did this behind the scenes, and I got a column out of this and I

picked up a phone and said, are you Sam Dixon? I said, yes, he said, well, this is Neil Borgs.

And he said, I've been researching you and the speech that so-and-so gave, and I have discovered

that you are the actual person who brought this person to Atlanta. And I thought, oh God, he's

going to be on the radio. It's going to destroy my practice. I said, so, well, yes, I said,

what are you going to do with it? And he said, I want to give you a break. I'm not going to reveal it.

I've always been grateful for that.

No, and I'll always be grateful for the fact that in his book that he wrote, because I actually

met him, he was doing a book signing at a long-defunct Barnes and Noble that no longer exists

where he used to in Metro Atlanta. And I went and met him, and I thanked him. I said, hey,

listen, I read Camp of the Saints because you and Papu can in Death of the West. And in your books,

sir, you mentioned, he goes, oh, you won't be the same after reading it, trust me. And it's true,

that is, that's a book that just recently got a new edition. I forgot the name of the publisher.

I think it's Vodabon books. I'll look it up and confirm because we want to make sure that all

of our listeners who listen to this have the opportunity to get these copies of the books that we

discuss. And Madison Grant's book, Conquest of a Continent, if you're trying to get a first edition,

by the way, you're going to have to spend about three to four hundred dollars on eBay. It's not

available on Amazon, except as a reprint. And there are cheaper, cheaper facsimiles that have been

made of it that you can get for, you know, 20, 30 bucks. And I do encourage you to pick up both

passing at the great race. And people I cause to read for content. It's nice to have first

editions of, we're more interested in the content. Correct. And the version that I have actually,

it's good and it's gracious. And we pulled out here. Camp of the science is a novel. And then

generally I don't read novels, but I'd be curious to know what novels you would recommend. There are two

in addition to Camp of the science that I would, I know well that I would recommend, but what

do you, what can you come up with? You think for novel? Wow. I, well, you know what? To answer

that question, I'm going to go, I'm going to segue to a place that I wanted to bring up real quick

because I've got a copy of a very rare book in my hand, sir. It's one that we were just discussing

before we started. And it's very hard to find, ladies and gentlemen. I'm working with

Antelope Hill Press to figure a way to republish this though. It's called a white racialist

parental primer and guide to an intelligent sports and intellectual achievement program for white

youth with special emphasis on the development of physical courage. And he actually lists the books

that he would recommend you read. And I would say that, I mean, complete a agreement with him that

says some of the Jack Wyndon stories called Wild, I think is a great book.

Gosh, fiction. You put me on the spot here. I'll let you answer them. I'll answer them

with a couple more as I think about it. Well, I'll provide you with answers and things

that would shock your memory. I mean, why don't you talk to Thomas Fickson and one that's

one name. And there's another one that came to my mind and went out of GA Henty.

GA Henty is a very important writer that needs to come back to life. But the two particular ones,

that I would recommend to people are ones on the subject of the one is the American War for

Independence. And that's called Oliver Wiswell, Kenneth Roberts. Kenneth Roberts is considered

the greatest writer of historical fiction in America in history and literature. And I think this

is his best book. But it's the American Revolution, by the way, Kenneth Roberts was part of the

intellectual team that pushed through the Immigration Restriction Act in the 1920s over the massive

opposition from big business banks and the usual subjects. But anyway, the Oliver Wiswell is the

American Revolution from the eyes, told from the eyes of an American Tory, a loyalist, a

anarchist. And it really opens your eyes. It makes you rethink American history and

realize that the American Declaration of Independence is a very destructive document that separated us

from centuries and millennia of our history and promoted this idea that America was something

brand new. But it's a great book, sort of excellent book. And if you want to decide the other side

of the American Revolution, and in order to about a third of the colonists were loyalists and

anarchists and did not want the revolution, it's well worth reading. It will change your

perception of American history. The other one is on is in Russia. On Russia, the Russian Revolution,

and it's written by the only general in the Zaraist army who was a common background, who was

not an aristocrat. His name was Krasnov, Peter Nikolayevich Krasnov. And it's called

from double eagle to red flag. Yes, double eagle being the symbol of the Russian Mariky. And it's

the whole period from about 1900 down through about 1921, told from the eyes of a

Marikus Slavophile Orthodox Russian. And it was once a very famous novel. It's so many, many

copies in the English-speaking world in translation. And by a remarkable person who was murdered as

the results of the efforts of Eisenhower after World War II to apprehend him and his grandson

and forcibly returned down to for execution by Stalin. They lived in Paris and the complete

violation of international law. But Eisenhower and the British were both eager to please Stalin

very much wanted to execute General Krasnov. That's what happened. But anyway, so that's the other

one. And it gives you a view of the Russian Revolution, or I think a very accurate one, who was

involved in the Russian Revolution and what their real agenda was. So those are two that I would throw

out. The author that aforementioned a white racialist parental primer has mentioned that

Finnemore Cooper, James Finnemore Cooper is a required, required reading. Obviously, he wrote a number

of a number of novels, most famously, The Last Bull Hekins. Would you agree with that?

As we're talking about, I think he was an entertaining writer. Mark Twain did a demo job on,

I know, that didn't make him look pretty ridiculous in South America's books. The professional

southerners don't like him. They try to set up a guy named Sims as being a better writer. That's

not true. I've read Sims as novels. They're nowhere near as good as Finnemore, James Finnemore,

Cooper. But I don't really think, I think they're good novels. I don't think there's any,

not as useful to us as from W. Red Flag or all the books. I would say that one of the writers,

especially if you have children that needs to be like that, is GA Henty. Henty was the most popular

writer of boys, children models in the 1800s under Queen Victoria. He wrote some very good ones.

The one that affected me the most, I read it when I grandmother's house, she had some of them.

That was in the reign of terror. I read that when I was 10 years old. It took the right side. It was

very anti-democracy, very anti-fetch revolution. It was exciting to a little boy with all

full of guillotines and the things violence, the things that I would like. Henty wrote probably

40 or 50 books of differing qualities, but he was a great writer and his books should be looked

at for the third novel. We don't want to stop on novels. I think most people in our call

are like me and you read nonfiction rather than novels. There's so many books over the years

that you've recommended. Obviously, one of the books that we're going to talk about again today,

we're going to tell about Conquist of the Continent. In particular, the 1920s, because you just

mentioned again the author of the one book, forgive me for getting his name, James, who wrote the

fictional story of the American Revolution that came out in the 1920s. I have done a lot of research

on that individual. He was paramount actually in helping pass the 1924 Migration Act. He also

wanted to go even further. He's a fascinating individual. He's also somebody that is among people

who are real authorities and not ideological hacks. Kenneth Roberts is always considered the

leading writer of historical fiction in the American literature.

What was so fascinating, but let's stop at the 1920s and put it in context of the Great War

had ended. The United States largely came out unscathed considering what happened between 1914

and 1918 to France, Germany, and obviously the other destruction of what we saw from

Tsarist Russia becoming the Soviet Union. Put into perspective for those who might not understand

the enormity of what that decade, the second decade of the 20th century leading into the 1920s,

what that was like for the United States as we were basically, in a lot of ways, the sole power

in the world as the British Empire was beginning to fracture. I guess what, the Balfour Declaration

came out in 1914. 1917, thank you for correcting, and then of course just the horror of what was

happening in Russia and what was going on with post-war Germany and just put into perspective

the 1920s for us. Well, the 1920s were a time of appropriate reaction, I guess,

Woodrow Wilson. After World War I, there was a strong reaction in America, which people

anticipated would happen after World War II, but it did not happen. It was aborted and suppressed,

and I think you see a lot of the memoirs, like Eisenhower and Churchill, I think they were

anticipating that there would be a revision, a reaction, and a lot of the falsehoods in the war

would be laid to rest, and that's why when you read the memoirs of Eisenhower and Churchill,

there are astonishing omissions of the usual propaganda in those memoirs.

Because I think they remember that in World War I, the British and the Allies had all kinds of

false trusty stories, and these were championed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the

American Churches, and they'd been investigated, never found any true, and he had his

encyclicals, whatever ran from all the pulpits, and after World War II, he was a liar.

He knew he was lying, and it brought disgrace upon him and upon his church, which I think

really never recovered from that exposure and disgrace. It recovered somewhat, but it set

in motion the disintegration of the Church of England as a real force in society.

But anyway, in World War I, there was a tremendous reaction, and Wilson was rejected.

He thought when he left office, he was loath and despised by the American people.

He was exposed as having been paid off by the war, but more munitions that the

emissions manufacturers that he lied to the people, he had done horrible things.

He and Lloyd George continued the food blockade against Germany until 1919.

After the long after the armistice for the result of a quarter million German children star to death,

he was just taboo. No one wanted to be associated with him. The Democratic Party didn't want

to be associated with him at all. There was a strong reaction and intellectually,

the 1920s for the last decade, in which our kind of ideas were not only socially acceptable,

they were the dominant ideology. That all began changing with the great depression and the

advent of Frank and Roosevelt, his member of this cabinet and the people he staffed the government

with. But it was sort of the last gas. After that, we were pretty well relegated to

a very marginalized position in society. Well, it's funny because in the great gas to be like,

F Scott Fitzgerald, he actually, some would say he lamppoons, he makes fun of by using Tom Buchanan,

the wasp character, who's married to Daisy, where he talks to Nick and one of the opening scenes

when they're having, I don't know, Sunday brunch, whatever. And he starts talking about,

have you heard of this old man, G'dard, who's writing about the fall of Nordic whites,

and the rise of the, of the, of the underman, the, the oon German. And, you know, we've got to take

this book seriously. And he's obviously talking about Lothop Stoddard and the rising tide of color,

who he also wrote a number of other fantastic books, including he actually cobrate one with

Madison Grant, called Alien in our midst, which was, I think it was published right after the

1924 Immigration Act. It might be wrong there. But it's just stunning to think that, I mean,

Sam put into context, Madison Grant, who he was, because a lot of our, a lot of the younger

listeners, they might know the name because back in 2020, might have been 2021, he had a, there

was a national park in California that had this big rock that was dedicated to Madison Grant,

because he was one of the biggest conservationists and naturalists. And he, you know, he's responsible

for basically helping create the national park system, along with one of his good friends,

Theodore Roosevelt, who you're somewhat down on, and I'll let you describe why.

Well, I think we need the diversion to theodore Roosevelt. He certainly was nothing compared to

his awful cousin, Frank and Roosevelt. He was a truly terrible person like Wilson. But, uh,

you know, Theodore Roosevelt was kind of blow far and he wanted war crimes trials for the

defeated Germans. He wanted the Kaiser put on trial. He, uh, he slithered Republican vote in 1912,

in order to enable Woodrow Wilson to, uh, to win that election and to defeat President Taft,

who, as far as I can tell, is the last American president who ever put the interest of the average

American ahead of those foreign influencing groups. But anyway, he, uh, he was financed by, uh,

that campaign was, was put together and financed by Jacob Schiff, the New York banker who also

back row went in and Stalin and Trotsky and the Bolsheik revolution. So, you know, these are,

these are things that are, his great discredit. And, uh, you know, they are things that were good

about him, but they're also, in larger sense, he, he associated himself with movements that were

to become even more destructive as time went on, including the war with Spain. America's,

America's real break, first break with the, uh, traditional policy of, of neutrality, isolationism

and the murder of doctrine, which are, those three things are, are a very sensible policy if the

United States, you know, the war with Spain was the first break with that. World War I was

the second and more important break, but, uh, you know, that was a, that was a catastrophic war

for America, more than nothing to do with our interests. And they, what we got out of it was the

Philippines and Puerto Rico, both of which we could very well have done without.

What did your first encounter, conquest of a continent? And, uh, and, and, and, and have you read it

recently? I'm just curious. I've never read it. I counted in high school through the very person

who, with whom I had the real conversation at the Goldwater meeting. And, uh, he was a friend of

my brothers and, uh, he would give me the names of books. And that was a book that he recommended

that I read it. I don't know where I found it, but I was in a library somewhere. But, uh,

the conquest of the continent and the passive of a great race, that the thing that they're,

they're about the, the Nordic theory, he was a Nordicist. And that can be carried too far.

You know, we, we, we don't want to alienate non-Nordic whites, that, you know, we want all,

all branches of the white race to, to, which have a, basically a shared race, a shared

cultural, shared religion, where the Latins, the, uh, kelts, the two towns, the,

like the, uh, Nordics, the, uh, slas, we, we need to stop these family feuds and, um,

and work with each other as a team and not allow our enemies to play us off against each other.

But the, uh, the thing about Madison Grant is that he, he approaches history, both worldwide

in passing the great race, and also in case of America itself in conquest of a continent.

He wrote his, he wrote history at the standpoint of the, the, the white race of our race.

That's the way it should be written. The same way your memory of the individual is the memory

of his life. And, uh, nothing, you know, when, when the, when the usual suspects set out to,

to strangle the distribution of Madison Grant's book, uh, conquest of the continent,

uh, that was the very point they picked up on. The anti-deformationally,

et cetera, they had a directive that the book was to be, uh, not be reviewed, it was

be suppressed in any way possible. And they said that it, it, it, it's, it's not what we want,

because it tells American history from the standpoint of the, the white Anglo-Saxon

and related Europeans, you know, uh, viewpoint. And, uh, since then, we'd never have that,

you know, and you read the standard, if you read stuff they have in the schools now, it's written

for a very destructive Marxist viewpoint, a viewpoint of people who are adversarial to society,

who's hate, hate white people, who hate our system, our society, our history, our language,

everything. And they seek to destroy it, clearly seek to destroy it. But even if you read the

more standard liberal stuff, say the stuff that we were reading in the 1950s and 60s when I was

in elementary school and high school, that's written from the standpoint as sort of a Jeffersonian

nonsense view of the story of freedom. Uh, it's a, what they call a wig theory from the old

corny and Britain. And it's the story of freedom and how freedom just broadened down, you know,

we, we broke free of England. We, we walked out the door and slammed the door shut on

tensed to 12 centuries of Anglo-Saxon heritage from Britain, including everything that we

believed politically, including specifically the Bill of Rights, which was, the template the Bill

of Rights was passed by the English parliament in the 1690s. I call the Declaration of Rights,

but that Jefferson and his wretched decoration have been used to create this idea that you

hear about every fourth July that we, we broke free from British tyranny and the tyranny of

Tang George, who was not a tyrant, a very, a very likable person, a very admirable person.

And, but they, they, they've gotten that stuff waged into the history, into the minds of Americans,

who've been taught that there's something glorious about the Declaration, which is, it's not,

you know, the Constitution represented a, a breath of fresh air and common sense compared to the

nuttiness of the Declaration. And, and people recognize that Lincoln said that in, in speech independence hall

on its way to be in his first inauguration, that he always preferred Declaration independence

to the Constitution. He put the Declaration first. And that's, that's, that viewpoint is in

use right history. You know, we broke free of England. And then we broke free by expanding the

franchise where no longer was it restricted to people with, with certain educational and

property achievements, that, that every white male over the age of 21 could vote. And then we

broke free and free the Slays. And they came free and they could vote. And then we became free

by passing the 19th Amendment and giving women the vote. And then we became free all, all, all,

all the story, the story of freedom. You actually see books, American history, they're called

the story of freedom. Well, that's not history. You know, you, you can, we can live as all of us in

America, who worked with American Renaissance under these shadow of Jared Taylor. As all of us know,

you can live in a, in a real nation. You can live in a real people. You can live with your race.

You cannot live in an idea. And an idea is nice, but it, but it's, it's, it's an idea. It doesn't

really exist. And so the good thing about Madison Grant was, and this is what needs to be regained,

is that he interpreted and explained history as, in terms, the reference was to our race of people,

what we had achieved. And that's what we need to get back to. And we need to clear all the stuff out

of the colleges, the universities, the elementary schools, the children's literature, the New York

Times, all these people that are promoting that, that, that story of freedom garbage, unless they're

promoting the, the outright Marxism of, of the woke people. I believe that you, that your mother

was a member of the, of dark, correct, a daughter's American Revolution? No, she was not. She never

joined. She was, she was entitled to be there. She was a, a new England extraction. Her, our,

our ancestor was a captain at the Battle of, John Leland was a captain at the, the Americans

at the Battle of Marker Hill. I didn't even know that growing up because they were so Southernized,

they didn't want to talk about it. They didn't tell me about it until, you know, some years later,

we went to Boston, and she showed, showed us a monument and explained it. But she never joined.

My father could join the Sons of the Arctic Revolution because he was a descendant of General

Pickens in South Carolina. But neither of them joined those organizations, but they, they were

traditional Americans. And my father, especially, had, had views that, that would have shocked a lot

of people who knew them. They were both fairly prominent in Atlanta and widely liked, but had my

father's private views been known, he would have a lot of feet about that. Well, that's one of the

things Madison Grant brings up in. Remember, this book came out actually in 1933. And I, I want to say,

when was, when did Roosevelt get elected for the first, first terms at 32? Or was it?

32 and 33. Okay, that's right. He writes the three millions of whites of 1790 have increased

to 109 million in 1930. Of this number one third or either foreign born or the children of such,

one wonders how many of the 109 million are the undiluted descendants of colonial stock.

Because he's of course referring to the great wave, the Ellis Island wave. And then he actually

breaks down the percentages who came from, you know, the various other Western European nations,

Eastern Europe. And, you know, he was, he was forceful when it came to just proclaiming, like you've

said, a very Nordic centric view. In fact, he lamented in some ways the American Revolution,

because he, he noted that a lot of the best stock were loyalists who then went to Ontario,

to Canada. And we're definitely vexing to the early nascent nation as we tried to annex that part

in the war of 1812. And he writes actually, I like to tell stories, southerners love to tell stories

and lawyers like you have themselves taught. And one of my stories is that when I joined the

Sun for the American Revolution, when I was like 25, I was working for one of the large law firms

at Lava. And then I was the youngest person in the Sun for the American Revolution. They,

they already, it was a geriatrics club. And so they said, we want to make you membership sharing

and see if you can find us some young members. So I started thinking through who I could get.

And my immediate supervisor in the law firm, I was somebody I had known in college,

two years ahead of me, of a Marine who'd come back and got lost in all this. But anyway, he,

his name was Brooks. I won't get his phone name. I think he's still alive. He wouldn't want that.

But Brooks, a very English first name. He had a very English last name. And he was Brooks the fourth.

And I thought, well, you know, Brooks, he's got four generations. He can go back. And that'll

carry him back probably beyond the Civil War. He'll be able to show his genealogy pretty easily.

So I asked Brooks over lunch. I said, I told him what I was up to. And I said, did you have any

answers to the thought of the revolution? And he said, I did. And I said, would you consider

joining the sons of the American Revolution? And he said, no, I don't qualify.

So we'll, but you've had people find the revolution. He said, my ancestors were all marcus.

We, we had to flee the country. And we had to go to, to the Bahamas. So we didn't come back

to the 1830s. And Brooks was a very elegant looking guy. He was a kind of guy you'd want for

your brother-in-law or you want your daughter, man. He was a very nice looking, very Nordic,

very refined. And I thought probably the people who looked like Brooks did fight for the king.

That's an extraordinary observation. I'd like to go back to Conquest the Conic because I think

you're going to find this passage interesting because he's writing about the alien invasion.

And he wrote this, Sam, in 1790, Congress entered the first naturalization statute, the terms of which

confined its benefits to free white citizens. The restriction remained force, enforce until

extended in 1870 by statute giving the right of citizenship to persons of African descent.

At present, then, only whites and Negroes are eligible for naturalization, interpreting the

statute of 1790, the Supreme Court held that the term free white must be understood in its

common meaning as used by the framers and could not include a Hindu, a Sikh, or in another case a

Japanese. That was, I believe, a 1922 that that Supreme Court case happened. Because, again, he's

writing this in 1933. Meanwhile, the Immigration Act of 1924 provides that no alien and eligible to

citizenship shall be admitted to the United States. The Supreme Court decisions in the cases mentioned

mean that this law excludes all colored and oriental races, all in short, safe free whites and

Negroes. Another safeguard is thus thrown around the American stock. Sam, when you read this and

you think about what the Founding Fathers did with the 1790 Naturalization Act, subsequent naturalization

acts up until 1924, and of course, what happened in 1870 when blacks were admitted and given the

franchise, race was always known to the Founding to American. It's not as if this was a social

construct invented to justify Jim Crow or sundown towns or separate but equal. Race was fundamentally

at the heart of the American experiment dating back to when whites encountered merciless Indian

savages, which is a lot of what conquest of continent is about.

Well, yes. It is a normal and healthy thing to prefer your own kind.

We read a lot in America, a lot of American Renaissance conferences about IQ and how whites have

a higher IQ than blacks. Some people say, well, Asians, Chinese have a slightly higher IQ than whites

and so on. But, you know, the tie of loyalty to our own. We don't have to say, well, we're loyal

to white people because they have a high IQ. We're loyal to white people because that's what we are.

It's like your mother. Your mother does not have to be the greatest mother on earth because all

of you said one living person, you know, one of them was only one mother of people living today

who could, you know, some says, be considered the greatest mother on earth. And, you know, you love

your mother because she's your mother and she changed your diapers and she taught you how to speak

English and she then she fed you and she dressed you to go to school. So you have a duty of

loyalty to your own. This is what I spoke about at the last American Renaissance conference.

If you don't feel that natural preference for your own kind, then you're, and my opinion,

you're profoundly sick and, and potentially very evil person. You know, you, you, you,

and America's big into that. It's been popularized now going on the Oprah Winfrey and bad

maling your parents. And I hear people explaining how they failed in light because they're dead.

He didn't go to their soccer games and all this kind of nonsense. You know, it,

anybody, I think you have to be loyal and those laws reflected that. This country, you know,

just like you expect laws passed by Nigeria to favor majorians and not Norwegians.

Yeah. No, I just, it's always interesting to think that even in the 1920s, high-cast Indians,

sorry, Vivek, you wouldn't have been counted as an American in 1920. This was, this was 104 years ago.

This is only, you know, my, let's see here, my great-grandparents, I'm trying to think

when they would have been, or my grandparents, my grandfather was born in, let's see, 1921.

He died. Anyway, sorry, I'm trying to do some quick math. But it's just fascinating to think

that in this, in the span of goodness gracious, your lifetime, your parents were born, what,

in the early part of the 20th century? In the 1908. Okay. I mean, this is, this is a world

that, I mean, the country was, again, 90% white. We had just passed an immigration act in 1924 that

was going to secure the future of the country. And, and we knew what, and who could qualify as a

citizen. It was, it was white people and regrettably due to the failure of the American colonization

society, which was, of course, founded by George Washington's nephew. And for instance, Scott Key,

we had this population that was largely contained in the South at the time of the, of the passing of

the 1924 immigration act, because the, the great migration was only in its early infancy at that

point. You know, places like Chicago were still overwhelmingly 95% white. The blacks hadn't started

to migrate to, you know, Buffalo, Rochester, New York, and Baltimore, and Chicago, and St. Louis,

and of course, to, to out west to Los Angeles and California. So I mean, it's really hard to put

into context the world that Madison Grant is writing in Sam until you encounter the resistance

in 1933 when this book is published. And it's published by one of the biggest publishers at the time,

by the way. This wasn't, this wasn't self-published. This was published by Charles Scribner Sons,

which was at the time one of the top publishing houses in the country. And yet he encountered severe

censorship. And it just talked about that a little bit.

Well, the censorship has very deep roots. All nations have censorship. You know,

the libertarians like to say, they are in favor of wide open freedom speech. And I, I, I tend to

be very much in favor of freedom speech. But there are always things that, that societies will

not allow you to talk about. And it's an interesting obscure bit of history. But Queen Victoria

is responsible for making racism socially unfashionable. She was very firm that she was the queen

and empress of all her subjects, including the Africans and Asians. Before she became queen in

the 1830s, it was quite social acceptable to go to the dinner party among the highest ranks of

the aristocracy. And, and have people use the ethnic pejoratives for non-Europeans. But that

changed. And people who had these attitudes were were slowly sort of forced to change or were

called children from society. And this got to the point. There's another book that I'll be

all talk about. And it's mentioned people. It's an excerpt book. It's a great book. I couldn't

put it down. Written by an English aristocrat named, um, oh, oh, so some of them sent John or

Syngin as the British overclasses called pronounced Saint John. But he was, he was Queen Victoria's

ambassador to Haiti for about three years. And he wrote a book in the 1890s when he came back to

Britain and called Haiti or the Black Republic. I've got a, I've got a first edition Sam

right here that I'm looking at. It is a brilliant, brilliant book. It's so, it's so elegant. I mean,

it's the British that they're best. He has a rise sense of humor. But he has to write in the,

in the preface of the book, he has to write. He says in the 1890s that this book will upset many

people because, you know, because it runs against the popular belief because I do not think

that Haitians will ever achieve a, a level of European civilization. I don't think they will

ever achieve that. They will remain what they are. So already, somebody who had the prestige to

be at the highest ranks in the diplomatic corps and to be a member of a distinguished aristocratic

family, writing it, writing a memoir of his life in Haiti. He had to do it. I collegeized,

it kind of softened the blow that people got in England and around the English thinking world

were going to get in the 1890s reading a book that said that Haitians are incapable of having

a civilized society. But it's a great book. It's a wonderfully informative and very humorous book.

How's Haiti doing in 2026? Mind you, do you know? Sorry. How was Haiti doing in the

current year of 2026? It's always worse. I remember 30 or 40 years ago, we were reading about

three million starving Haitians. Now we're reading about 13 million starving Haitians. It never

changes. It just gets worse and worse and worse. I've long wanted to take a trip to Haiti, but

there's never a period when it's safe. No, a port of prints right now. In fact, no, it's probably,

it's probably, it's probably, it's probably never been more unsafe than right now. Actually,

there's no stable government. Obviously, during the Biden admin, I say that in quotations,

I'd want to say 9% of the population of Haiti was brought to the United States. TPS for millions

of, for millions of Haitians has expired. And they're supposed to go back, but a judge

stayed that. And so it's going to be interesting to see as 2026 goes further into the year to see

if we're going to see a return. But that is Haiti. There's been a number of good books, by the way,

in Haiti recently, but that probably is one of the more interesting looks at to the to the history

of Haiti that this, this diplomat. It shows that the, I'll see these signs in my neighborhood,

the Democratic Party has put there on the leftists who are in its precinct committee. And they say,

in this house, we believe, you've probably seen those signs, but they have certainly one of them is,

we believe in science. They do not believe in science. They're quite the contrary. They have a

a religion that is fact-free and it's completely divorced from science. And the

Haiti is proof of everything that you hear on the American Renaissance conference.

We've wasted blame for everything nowadays. I mean, there's this liberal religion of hating white

people. They managed to blame us for Haiti too. I read a lot of books on Haiti. And modern

line is that Haiti was ruined by French colonialism. That that's what ruined Haiti. It

blacks in 260 or 225 years have not been able to recover from the evils done them by white people.

But no, it shows. I had an argument with a black graduate student when I was in college who

he was always talking about the anti-white line, a small course I had. He did that and I said,

well, you know, there's a, there's a neighborhood in another country where there were no white

people to run segregated schools or all these things you object to. And we were black people were

unrestrained. It's called Haiti. There's no white people that is discriminated like that. That's

before I found out that the new line was going to be that the French destroyed Haiti. They

they're responsible for all the problems. It's a French white people. Yeah, it's interesting.

Years ago, I picked up a book called Lost White Tribes by Ricardo Orizio and it had a chapter

about Haiti. And it was fascinating to encounter the Constitution of Haiti in 1804, which barred

white people from owning property in Haiti. Yeah, the American Marines changed that would be,

would be invaded in Haiti in 1915 or whatever. That's right. Right. Right. And Roosevelt wrote

a new Constitution. But yeah, and people who saw soft hearted whites, whites who infected with

the sort of sickly disease. In a mental illness. You would get upset by what you said about the

excluding the Hindus and others from American citizenship. Well, you know, hey, you know,

the Haitians in 1804 were smarter than the founding fathers. They at least had the good sense to

put in their original Constitution. No white man can ever be a citizen. He can ever own me thing.

I want to say that actually doesn't I want to say there's a line about white women though that

that. Yeah, I think they can own property, but it does allow them to be on the island. I can't

remember the exact word. I'll also look it up. We'll have to do that book because that's that

book. Same I'm not sure if you've ever read that, but it is fascinating to think of what happens

when you lose when whites lose because there is a heroin chapter in that book about lost white

tribes about the southerners, I'm sorry, the southerners who went to Brazil. And obviously they've

intermingled. They've amalgamated racially, but initially they were confederates who refused

to rejoin the union. And they went down to to what is now Brazil. And there's I think there is

still a community down there. They don't exactly look like they'd be Robert E. Lee or Stonewall

Jackson's kids, but it is it's a very interesting book into what happens when when you lose and

died. They didn't get the treatment that whites got the genocide and Haiti because if they want

to talk about genocide, you know, every white whites were children, Haiti. If you have an

ironic sense of humor and a kind of sort of sick sense of humor, you have to give Desolene the

header Haiti after they finally ran the whites out and the guy that wrote their constitution,

1804, he was a supreme white hater. He hated whites more than the others. And he called his

generals in to a meeting in his palace or whatever he was living in. He said that I want every

white person in this island dead by the end of the week, all of them, their women, children,

old babies, all of them. I want them dead. That's so the the generals have maybe taken white

wives because whites are more sexually more attractive than other races, even to the other races.

And so they asked Desolene and they said, what about our wives? He said kill them too.

So a couple weeks later, they came back from another conference with the president and they asked

he said, they said, well, we can't add your orders. He said all the whites did and he said, yes,

they have been brutally killed them on hooks where they struggled for hours suspended on hooks

through their ribcage, stuff like that. And so he said, what about your wives? And they said,

yeah, we kill them too. And to show that Desolene has such a humor, he laughs and he said, well,

one thing we can say is, you're better Haitians than you are husbands.

And just the nakedness of white wickedness that you hear from the professors at Harvard,

you know, national public radio. This is just such obvious phone. You wonder that people don't see

through it. It's like they talk about racial equality when I was in elementary and in high school.

That's when they first started telling us that science had proved the races were equal.

The first time I heard that I didn't hate black people. I don't hate black people to stay.

I know a lot of fine black people. But you know, and I knew black, we could find white black people

who would work for my grandmother. But I told this high school teacher, I laughed and he said,

what's so funny? So I was showing this as a joke. And he said, it is not a joke. He has a former

peace corps boundary. This is a science has proved it. And I said the most obvious answer, and you know,

well, over the period of our separation evolution, our skin colors have changed,

the texture, our hair has changed, the shape of the skulls has changed, you know, all these things

have changed. How would it be that there'll be one organ of the species of humanity, of mankind

that never changed? But you're obviously not true. And when you ask questions or the teachers,

I would ask them, well, who proves this? They just get mad and say, science has proved it. That's

well, who are the scientists? Where did they prove? They'd get mad.

They're nobody has, nobody has ever proved it. It's obviously not true. And this business about

whites being a, the demon race of history, this is just such obvious, obvious, the false stuff.

And the motive behind is quite clear too. These people hate white people, including most especially

the self-loathing whites and profiteers, like you hear on National Public Radio that promote it.

That's why we never forget to get an ending at that. We never have an ending at that. We're always

wrong. If we came to America and took the land of the Cherokees, we were evil. The victimology

clock starts here, whites victimize Indians. They're not rational. Well, who's here before the Cherokees?

The Cherokees were not in possession of the lands they held when we landed on our boats from Europe.

They hadn't had those lands since the dawn of time. Another Indian tribe, they had taken them

another many, and they didn't create reservations like we did for the conquered peoples. They just

exterminated them. But they are noble. They are victims and our ancestors who came to South Carolina

and took the land from the Indians. They are evil and wicked. But then, when other people are

coming to take the land from us, we are wicked because we won't give it away. We have the same rights

as Cherokees. You don't find them saying, how dare the Mexicans and Haitians and Nigeria

come to America and try to take the land. This is terrible. No, it's how horrible white people are

because they won't get the land away. When you look at people that are saying this, the obvious

conclusion is, these people hate white people. I do firmly agree with that. I know that

the editor of American Resence, Jared Taylor, might disagree with that assessment, but I firmly,

I think Kevin Deanna would agree with that as well. And you see a lot of that hate

Sam when it came to the response and the reaction to this book being published in 1933.

The people wanted to express that they wanted to attack the corporate memory, our collective memory

of our people. They wanted to erase it. They wanted history of rewritten. We were airbrushed out

of history. Our interest, our history, Horsen Hangus, the leaders of the Anglo-Saxons, Latin

and Britain, you know, Cicero, Sophocles. None of these people matter. They don't matter. They're

dead white people. That's where it was leading already when the anti-defamation

leagues sought to suppress Madison Grant's book. They did not want any talk of our collective

memory. They wanted us split up into a hundred million individuals so that their team could win

the game. There's a charge that judges give jurors and cases where intent must be proved.

And the judge, the charge is not to explain to jurors that to have intent to commit the crime.

It doesn't mean that you have to sign a statement. I intend to rob the bank and shoot the teller.

The intent can be presumed from the nature of the act. The intent of these people that

suppressed Madison Grant's book and who are preaching this anti-white hatred all over America,

the intent is obviously malevolent, it's malicious, it's intended to hurt and destroy,

and the intent can be seen from the nature of the acts.

I'll tell you, he considered Madison Grant considered the 1924 immigration exam a second declaration

of independence. And it's a correction of the declaration independence. It's a racial

correction. It's emphasizing the importance of race and the founding of our country,

which was omitted by our founders until 1799 Nationalization Act.

Well, they put it in the act, they didn't put it in the Constitution,

and they allowed that windy, nonsensical declaration independence. I know I'm short people

offend them, and I know that our leader, Jarrett Taylor, who's much more pragmatic than I am,

he would say, oh, we can't start fighting a declaration. But honestly, the thing is so crazy,

you know, my father used to tell me, you were anyone that believes that all men are created equal,

is a fit can for the insane asylum. He said, you will never meet anyone in your life

who is equal to anybody else. We're all one guy, I'll be a little taller,

another be a little faster, one will be a little higher, better at Latin, and other, they're not equal,

we're not equal at all. And then this business about all men are, you know, I hear this on James

Evers' show, they haven't added that somebody is settling something, some groups, and we know that men

were endowed by their creator within 80-year-olds rights. Well, I don't know that, I don't believe that's true.

I don't know if we can natural rights either, so no, I don't think that.

Dr. Benson's don't have an 80-year-old right, people in Saudi Arabia don't have any Chinese don't

have any, but humans in New Guinea don't have any. The rights we have, one for us, by our ancestors in

England and Europe, those rights exist because they come out of a very specific and well-known

and identifiable culture and history. And we know who won them for us, the barons that are at

running me, the Magna Carta, the Puritans, who put a stop to Charles I's potentials of being a

divine right king. You know, these are the people that won the right to a lawyer, the right to

freedom of speech, the rights of a sub-out in the Declaration of Rights that our English ancestors

wrote when they passed the law in the age of 1690s. We have rights because of these specific

ancestors ours. And people like Papu and tribesmen or ebos and Nigeria, they don't have those

rights because no, it's just the silliest kind of garbage from Rousseau and Locke that

filled that Declaration of Independence. And it's no, the wonder is not that America is in the

terrible shape it's in and hitting for much worse shape. The amazing thing is starting out with

something that bad, we're not worse off. Well, as those various racial groups are dropped off

in Springfield, Ohio, and Metro Atlanta, and Salt Lake City, we do see those so-called

inalible rights begin to rust and falter and be excised from the, from this experiment, which is

the, which is the United States of America. And I'd like to close real quick just by reading the

final page of conquest, the continent, because it's fascinating to think back. He wrote this less

than 100 years ago, Sam, and it was a far different world because he's writing,

seeing the ruins of Europe at the time. I mean, again, Americans, you know, I was born in 85,

and so when you think about World War II, I would hear these wonderful stories from my grandparents

who both fought in World War II, but he's writing, you know, only what, a decade, 15 years after

the Great War ends, and just the horrifying nature of, you know, David Starr Jordan documented

this in War and the Breedser, when he talked about some of the, some of the elite of Britain,

and the elite of France just died pointlessly for a couple yards in some of these horrific battles

in 1914 and 1915 and 1916, and then the horror of what befell, and Germany as well, but then

the horror of what befell Russia, with the Bolshevik Revolution, and just the utter loss of,

of Russian noble and Christian blood in that revolution. So it's fascinating to read this,

and I'll close with this. Madison Grant writes, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Hindus,

and the Muslims have cultures, customs, religions, arts, literatures, and institutions of their own,

which for them may be, and in many cases probably are, as good as our own. The writer does not

see any gain in destroying these native elements of culture, or replacing them indiscriminately

with the institutions of the white man to which those races are, for most part, unfitted. Democracy is

an excellent example. It simply will not work among agiatics. In fact, its success is yet fully

to be proven in the Western world. But the other side of the problem, whether we, the white racial

surrender our own culture, our own lands, and our own traditions, good or bad to another race,

prevents a very different question. Fortunately in this case, in this case, reason and sentiment

march hand in hand. The prestige and strength of Europe and Great Britain have greatly impaired,

have been greatly impaired since the World War and Western civilization sooner or later,

may be forced to hand on the torch to America. We see the Nordics again confronted across

Pacific by the air. Immoral rivals, the Mongols, this will be the final area, arena of the struggle

between these two major divisions of man for world dominance in the Nordic race in America,

may find itself bearing the main brunt. In the meantime, the Nordic race that is built up and

protected to preserve Western civilization needs to realize the necessity of its own solidarity

and close cooperation upon this mutual understanding rest the peace of the world and the preservation

of its civilization. Let us take thought as to how we can best prepare for our share of the task

before us. That is bear our share of the white man's burden. Six years later, of course, we'd see the

second horrific, you know, civil war between the European powers. America came in. Of course,

Japan was involved with that and the world has just completely changed since Madison Grant wrote

those words. And I'm just curious what your thoughts are as we get ready to close.

Well, the world has changed back. I mean, you know, we shouldn't be this, we should end on our

optimistic note. Correct. And, you know, the young people, I had hoped that we would get into a

history of what life was like in the 50s and 60s in terms of trying to find the titles and books.

Well, go ahead and do, you know, by all means, go ahead. Well, let me look at the point that today,

with the internet, the internet has been like the printing press,

was with the printing press was invented and like the pistol, the pistol level the playing

field between the peasant and the aristocrat in the code of armor and the printing press level the

field between ordinary people and the priests of the church. But the internet has also leveled

the field and we can get stuff out and they hate the internet. You see all the time. You're

on national radio reading or times. They want to go back to the way they had it, you know, 30 or 40

and further years back when they controlled all the sources of information. The only way you

could get any information contrary to what the power structure wanted was by subscribing some

tiny little almost underground newsletter. And not two percent of the people would read that.

The news was censored and controlled and edited and manufactured. It was all to promote the

interests of what the power structure wanted to say. But, you know, there's a woman whose name needs

to be registered among them. The great heroines of our race, if we do prevail. And her name is Jane

Annunson and she was married to a financial advisor and stockbroker in Reno, Nevada. She put,

she had read what she called Jane's book service. And I got on her list when I was a senior in high

school and I was on it throughout college. I met her one time. She came to Atlanta and I didn't

with her in her husband. But she had the titles that you couldn't find out about. Like, like

books by Madison Grant and Laughham Sotter, the new decalogue of science and things like this.

And she had them in English, French, and German. And every three months, if you were on her mailing

list, you would get about eight page memograph list from back of these books that she had found

and used bookstores as she went around the world. Because she knew the books and she would go to

use bookstores while her husband was meeting his clients and she would come across them and she

would bring them in and add them to her stock. And that's how I knew what books to read. You couldn't

find out. There wasn't no internet. You couldn't find out from hardly, frankly, or later, Dan,

rather, from the New York Times. They would never let you know these books. But that's something

we, her name should be held in great reverence because she managed to bird dog hundreds of people

who went on to play roles as the soldiers on our movement, like me, to the books that we needed.

And the other thing we should, I know you want to close and it's been awfully long and I'm sure

our listeners are tired. But we should also glance at the modern books that should be read. Of

course, I would suggest Carlton Putnam's race and reality. Well, that's going to be a book we're

going to, that's actually going to be a book we're going to spend a lot of time on it in a

further episode. It was the only person supporting segregation. It was all like Yankee views,

by the way. It was a rework of his race and reason. It's better, race reasons good,

it's racing me, obviously, even better. I agree. But anyway, that's a very good book and it's

well written. It's short and punchy to the point, unlike so many of our books. And then, of course,

the one that I think was the most important in my lifetime, was what about Robertson's

distance majority? That's another episode we've got coming up. You're teased and I like it.

These are, I mean, again, because what we want to do is we want to spend an opportunity really

discussing each book and the importance of why you should read it. And I throw one more thing out

there. And last year, I decided to pick up some books that were published in, say, the 1960s,

early 60s, early 70s that were attacking at the time concepts like Jim Crow. And I found this

book, Sam, called anti Negro thought in America in 1900s and 1930, which was published by the LSU

press in the mid 60s. And I just was flipping through the bibliography. And I encountered books

that I had never even heard of. Can the white race survive, which was published in 1928,

1929, the Negro by R.W. Schufelt, which was published in 1908, who this is one of the,

just this brilliant individual who at the time was considered one of the top scientists and naturalists.

And just these were ideas and these were, these were the tomes, these were the books that the upper

classes were reading and engaging with. I mean, these ideas were not, you know, going to get you

removed from polite society when these books were published. If you were reading them, the exact

opposite. It wasn't until this book came out that we've been talking about concoest of a continent

that that that that vice, that that unbelievable censorship really came down, which Grant knew.

And Grant was really worried about because as he said, he, he wrote, quote,

our alien elements are to this day extremely sensitive to the public discussion of any of these

matters. In this respect, Americans probably have less freedom of speech and freedom of press than

exist in any of the countries in Europe. He wrote that in 1933. And it is, it's just astonishing

because I do consider a conquest of a continent to be one of those really important books to read

to to understand how important stock and and and the racial stock was to to basically creating

the concept of the 1924 Immigration Act and to maintaining, you know, at least some colonial

stock in place and to allow that to proliferate once again as opposed to be just amalgamated

in a sea of, well, gosh, do we dare we say it racial aliens who were who were as as we progressed

the world you were born into were they incompatible with the idea of what America was or

or what America had somewhat become as we began to at least admit and and fix the error of not

focusing on race as opposed and and oppose as opposed to the concept of focusing on, you know,

the nation being born as of this these ideals as you pointed out, Rousseau and Locke and the

Enlightenment. And we're here to give you racial enlightenment in this in this little podcast and

it comes from reading the great works, be it fiction, be it history or be it which we'll do next week

by the way. We will talk about race and all of us are trying to be the physicians that will heal

the existing prevailing side-guised and the, you know, the prevails in the churches and the schools

and colleges and finance everywhere in our society because that this prevailing culture and ideology

is simply a death for our people and it's intended to be death for our people. It's intended to

create who calls metaside to destroy people's minds and then by destroying their minds to physically

destroy us. Those are the stakes of the struggle and we cannot underestimate the hatred that our

enemies have for our race and if you were aware in the state of Virginia in the last election in

2025 it amounts that the democratic, the black democratic candidate for Attorney General

had said emails to people saying how much she wanted to see the white children who

for public opponents killed and held their mothers to hold them as they die. He did.

And he won the election. Based on the Democratic Party had no trouble with that statement.

Huge elements of it probably including the governor who gave the the Democrat response to Trump

state of the Union address. They not only have no problem with that in their heart of hearts

that's what they want to. Well I'll tell you what that brings our first discussion of conquest of

a continent by Madison Grant to a close. You can get in touch. Ladies and gentlemen if you

have a book that you think we should consider for being a topic in a in a future conversation. I

do think we should talk on Carlton Plutton's race and reality. You know why? Because I believe

that's a book that Jared Taylor wrote a forward to that's available from the New Century Foundation

and there's always a great way to try and tie in and get some a cheap plug for the great work

that Jared does to help fund the New Century Foundation. You can get in touch with me ladies and

gentlemen by sending an email to because we live here at protonmail.com once again that email is

because we live here at protonmail.com and Sam how can how can our listeners get in touch with you?

Well they have an email address which is ridiculous it's too long but it's March like the month.

Bloom like a flower bloom. Ling as a year. Ling March bloom. Ling 36 at gmail.com.

March bloom. Ling 36 at gmail.com. Well if you have trouble remember that just shoot me an email

and I'll forward it over to Sam guys and girls we really appreciate this opportunity to have a

conversation a candid conversation about the great books of the white past because in the present

we have to read them so that we can ensure that there is a future for for our children and our

posterity to inherit and as Sam eloquently put it there are no and illegal rights it's what you

decide to fight for in this life that passes on to our children and our posterity. So Sam if

if you have nothing else that's it. I wish everyone we talk to you next week but we thank you

listening you're active listening is an active resistance and but what we know about history

I think that the the rightful fail the rightful win and the wrong shall not win and that which is

true will stand the test of time that which is false will fail. Talk to you guys next week.