Paul Kersey and Sam Dixon dissect Conquest of a Continent by Madison Grant, a suppressed racialist text censored by the ADL, framing it as essential to understanding 1924’s Immigration Act and Anglo-Saxon continuity. They reject the "Whig theory" of American progress, praising Grant’s Nordic-centric history while condemning modern "white guilt" narratives like Haiti’s post-revolution massacres. Dixon credits underground networks—like Jane Annunsen’s 1950s book service—to distribute banned works, now amplified by the internet, and warns of Marxist "menticide" in schools. The episode ends with a call to reclaim racial history as a survival tool, citing Race and Reality as a modern battleground text. [Automatically generated summary]
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we've got something special for you today.
This is Radio Renaissance, and this is Paul Kersey, but I'm joined today with a luminary, 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 weeks ago, and we just started talking about 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 going to be a really interesting podcast because we're going to talk in the opening podcast on the great books of 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 this series?
Well, I was not prepared for that question, so I'll have to wing it.
But I think reading is a much better form of using your mind than watching videos.
I think when you watch Gone with the Wind, moving to Cinema, you don't have to create what Scarlett looks like.
Scarlett is Vivian Lee.
When you read the book, your mind has to create what she looks like and create what Ashley and Rhett 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 a video or something.
So I think reading is inherently better for your mind.
And also, as an old fogey of the Pleistocene era, I like holding a book where I can look back and review things as I read along.
On a broader sense, I think that we, one of the advantages to being in our cause, is that unlike the so-called Normandy's or the Wooxters, our set of friends is very expensive.
Cicero is our friend.
Madison Grant is our friend.
Our friends extent back to antiquity.
We understand and need to understand the whole history of our civilization, our culture, because without that kind of understanding, we have no corporate identity.
We're individuals, and I don't believe in individualism.
Well, I mean, going back, Homer's our friend, Thucydides, Herodotus, Marcus Aurelius.
Madison Grant's Passing00:15:08
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.
I'm sorry, Lothrop 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 I was forced to read.
And so what did I do?
I went and I read those books.
And I was the first person where I went to undergrad, Sam, who had checked out the passing of the great race since the 1970s.
And 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, back then, they had those little cards in the books that showed when people checked them out.
And some of them, in my case, have not been checked out since the 1920s.
Incredible.
Most people are content to be spoon-fed a pre-cooked ideology and way of looking at things.
Most people are not inquisitive.
I only had one teacher in all of the years I spent from kindergarten all the way through law school.
I only had one teacher or professor.
This is actually a teacher who taught critical thinking.
Today, she would be fired.
They would not put up with someone teaching critical thinking.
You've shared a story before where 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 Birch Society.
And you brought up a question of Senator McCarthy.
And you said, you know, almost reflexively, oh, well, isn't he on the wrong side of history, to paraphrase?
And somebody there chastised you.
Would you mind sharing that story?
Well, first of all, to correct it, no, it was not a John Birch Society meeting.
I was never a member of the John Birch Society.
I knew many people who were, and they did a great service in the American Opinion Bookstores, which is a footnote on the history of our movement that needs to be recalled.
You couldn't get books anywhere when I was young.
Even moderate conservative books were banned.
Only one type of book was available in the stores.
Only one type of book was prescribed in the schools.
It was completely one-sided.
And the John Burr Society opened well over 100 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 called the Atlanta Times, which was later shut down due to an organized advertising backup.
But anyway, but to get back to your story, I always like to ask people 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 was not a Goldwater supporter.
I didn't know much about him, but my oldest brother came home and eat dinner with the family from Georgia Tech and told me that some friends of his were involved in this meeting that was going to be at Emory University about a mile from where we lived.
And he was going to go to it and if I wanted to go along.
So I did.
And they had some speaker who I thought was very boring, and probably Russell Kirk.
I think Russell Kirk.
But anyway, they broke after the meeting, and my brother was talking to his friends, and I went to the back of the room to look at the book 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 had not read How to Win Friends and Influence People.
And unfortunately, I was very open to criticism.
But he spotted me as the youngest person in 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 on meetings.
Now we have a lot of young fellows.
But anyway, he came over to ask about me and he said, well, are you in school?
I said, yes, I'm in high school.
I'm in 11th grade or 10th grade.
And he said, well, but, you know, tell me about where you're in school.
I said, Druid Hills High School, which is the most liberal high school in the States, the Emory University High School.
So he said, oh, I went there and he asked about a teacher whom I disliked very much.
And we shared notes on her.
He didn't like her either.
But somehow the race issue came up.
And I told him that we were already being told that the races were equal.
And it was obviously untrue.
And he liked that.
But then he said something about McCarthy.
And I said, oh, he was a bad guy.
He accused liberals of being traitors who were not.
And he very rudely said, well, how'd you get that idea?
How'd you get that idea?
Where'd that come from?
And I said, well, that's what I've read in my textbooks and what I've been told in schools.
He said, these are the same textbooks and teachers who are not telling you the truth about race.
And I thought about it.
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, good vocabulary.
But really smart people read all sides of a question before they make their minds up.
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 could recommend.
And he said, will you really do that?
I said, I really will.
So he wrote out four titles of books.
And a few days later, I went to the Camden de Cab Library in Atlanta.
And 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 both, 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 virtually all the people McCarthy was after were, in fact, spies.
So anyway, I was reflecting on it.
I thought, well, you know, that guy at that meeting is right.
They're not only lying to us about race, they clearly are lying to us about McCarthy and probably we're being told lies all the time.
And that's what caused me to become a thought criminal.
Do you recall what those four books were?
Was one of those Whitaker Chambers witness, I assume?
Witness was one.
There was something, I think McCarthy himself wrote one about Marshall, and I forget the other one.
The other two, I don't remember the titles, but I wonder if one was John T. Anything John T. Flynn wrote or something.
He was a very rude person.
And I don't recommend people adopt this.
You do need to, we do need to read how to win friends and influence people.
And you don't want to bruise the egos of most people.
But he asked me, he said, have you ever heard the name Alger Hiss?
And I said, no, sir, I've never heard about Alger Hiss.
He said, well, would it surprise you to know that he was a close friend of Eleanor Franklin Roosevelt and worked in the government and that he was on the delegation that wrote the Yalta Pact 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?
Mrs. Hill, when she was denouncing McCarthy, never mentioned Alger Hiss.
And well, when I read those books, I found out who Alger Hiss was.
And I realized that, as he said, he said, just to provide context to the background of why people would believe McCarthy, you'd think they'd at least mention Alger Hiss, but they didn't.
No, I mean, it is stunning because I do recall when I was getting ready 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 Pat Buchanan 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 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 this, 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, treatise.
He actually says Camp of the Saints is one of the most important books to read.
So I read both those books at the same time, Death of the West and Neil Borts' 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 host, 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 of, I want to say it was 7.50 a.m. 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 and 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, you know, 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 finding out the titles of them was very, very hard to do.
By the way, before we leave the subject of Neil Bortz, I wanted to say that I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Neil Bortz.
He wants to be a favor.
When he was on the AR, I was a big figure in Atlanta journalism.
I had secretly arranged a talk in Atlanta by a very controversial person who will go unnamed.
And I wanted, being a young lawyer and not wanting to be doxxed, as I eventually was, I did this behind the scenes.
And I got a call at my office and I picked up the phone and said, Are you Sam Dixon?
I said, Yes.
He said, Well, this is Neil Bortz.
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, it's going to be on the radio and 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'm going 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 it 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 Pat Buchanan in Death of the West.
And in your book, sir, you mention it.
He goes, oh, you won't be the same after reading it.
Trust me.
And it's true.
That's a book that just recently got a new edition.
I forgot the name of the publisher.
I think it's Vodubon Books.
I'll look that 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 $300 to $400 on eBay.
It's not available on Amazon except as a reprint.
And there are cheap, cheaper facimiles 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 of the Great Race and people like us to read for content.
It's nice to have first editions, but we're more interested in the content.
Correct.
And the version that I have actually, it, goodness gracious, let me pull it out here.
Camp of the Saints is a novel.
And 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 Saints that I know of that I would recommend.
But what two are you?
What can you come up with?
Do you think a novel?
Wow.
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, completely agree with him that some of the Jack Lyndon stories, Call of the Wild, I think, is a great book.
Gosh, fiction.
You put me on the spot here.
I'll let you answer, then I'll answer with a couple more as I think about it.
Well, I'll provide you with answers and things that will jog your memory.
My name's Thomas Dixon, one that's one name.
And there's another one that came to my mind.
G.A. Hentey.
G.A. Hente is a very important writer that needs to be come back to life.
But the two particular ones that I would recommend to people are ones on the subject of one is the American War for Independence, and that's called Oliver Wiswill by Kenneth Roberts.
Kenneth Roberts is considered the greatest writer of historical fiction in America and history and literature.
And I think this is his best book.
American Revolution Insights00:09:41
But it's the American Revolution.
And by the way, Kenneth Roberts was part of the intellectual team that pushed through the Immigration Restriction Act in the 1920s over massive opposition from big business banks and the usual subjects.
But anyway, Oliver Wisville is the American Revolution told from the eyes of an American Tory, a loyalist, a monarchist.
And it really opens your eyes.
It makes you rethink American history and realize that the 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.
It's an excellent book.
And if you want to decide the other side of the American Revolution, and remember about a third of the colonists were loyalists and monarchists 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 the Russian Revolution.
And it's written by the only general in the Tsarist army who was of a commoner background, who was not an aristocrat.
His name was Krasnov, Peter Nikolaevich Krasnov.
And it's called From Double Eagle to Red Flag.
Yes.
Double Eagle being the symbol of the Russian monarchy.
And it's the whole period from about 1900 down through about 1921, told from the eyes of a monarchist, Slavophile, Orthodox Russian.
And it was once a very famous novel.
It sold many, many copies in the English-speaking world in translation.
And written by a remarkable person who was murdered as a result of the efforts of Eisenhower after World War II to apprehend him and his grandson and forcibly returned them for execution by Stalin.
They lived in Paris, and it was a complete violation of international law.
But Eisenhower and the British were both eager to please Stalin, and Stalin very much wanted to execute General Krasnov, and that's what happened.
But anyway, so that's the other one.
And it gives you a view of the Russian Revolution, 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 Finnimore Cooper, James Fenimore Cooper, is a required reading.
Obviously, he wrote a number of novels, most famously, The Last Mohicans.
Would you agree with that?
Because we're talking about it.
I think he was an entertaining writer.
Mark Twain did a demo job on him that did make him look pretty ridiculous in some of his 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' novels, and they're nowhere near as good as Finmore, James, Finnmore, Cooper.
But I don't really think, I think they're good novels.
I don't think there's any, they're not as useful to us as from Double Eagle Red Flag or Oliver Wilson.
I would say that one of the writers, especially if you have children, that needs to be looked at, is G.A. Hentey.
Henti was the most popular writer of boys' children novels in the 1800s under Queen Victoria.
And he wrote some very good ones.
The one that affected me the most, I read it at my grandmother's house.
She had some of them.
That was In the Reign of Terror.
And I read that when I was about 10 years old, and it took the right side.
It was very anti-democracy and very anti-French Revolution.
And it was exciting to a little boy, all full of guillotines and the things, violence, the things that a little boy would like.
But Henty wrote probably 40 or 50 books of differing qualities, but he was a great writer.
And his books should be looked at.
But in terms of novels, but we don't want to stop on novels.
I think most people in our college, like me and you, read nonfiction rather than novels.
Yeah, 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 talk about Conquest of the Continent, and 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.
And I have done a lot of research on that individual, and he was paramount, actually, in helping pass the 1924 Immigration Act.
And he also wanted to go even further, actually.
He was a fascinating individual.
But he's also somebody that is among people who are real authorities and not ideological hacks.
Kenneth Roberts has always been considered to be the leading writer of historical fiction in American literature.
What was so fascinating about the let's talk about the 1920s and put it in context of, you know, 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 utter destruction of what we saw from Tsarist Russia becoming the Soviet Union.
I mean, put into perspective for those who, you know, 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 country and the world as the British Empire was beginning to fracture.
I guess what?
The Balfour Declaration came out in 1914.
No, 1917.
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 against 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.
And it was aborted and suppressed.
And I think you see a lot of the memoirs of people 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 remembered that in World War I, the British and the Allies had all kinds of false atrocity stories.
And these were championed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Episcopal and Anglican churches.
And he said they'd been investigated and they were found to be true.
And he had his encyclicals, whatever, read from all the pulpits.
And after the war, it revealed that 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 left office.
He was loathed and despised by the American people.
He was exposed as having been paid off by the war munitions, the munitions manufacturers, that he had lied to the people.
He had done horrible things.
He and Lloyd George continued the food blockade against Germany until 1919, long after the armistice with the result that a quarter of a million German children starved to death.
He was just taboo.
No one wanted to be associated with him.
The Democratic Party didn't want to be associated with Woodrow Wilson.
And there was a strong reaction intellectually.
The 1920s were the last decade in which our kind of ideas were not only socially acceptable, they were the dominant ideology.
And that all began changing with the Great Depression and the advent of Franklin Roosevelt, the members of his cabinet, and the people he staffed the government with.
But it was sort of the last gasp.
After that, though, we were pretty well relegated to a very marginalized position in society.
Well, it's funny because in the Great Gas Media F. Scott Fitzgerald, he actually, some would say he lampoons, he makes fun of by using Tom Buchanan, the WASP character who's married to Daisy, where he talks to Nick in 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, Godard, who's writing about the fall of Nordic whites and the rise of the underman, the Undermensch.
Broke Free Viewpoint00:13:07
And we've got to take this book seriously.
And he's obviously talking about Lothrop Stoddard and the rising tide of color, who he also wrote a number of other fantastic books, including he actually co-wrote one with Madison Grant called Alien in Our Midst, which was, I think it was published right after the 1924 Immigration Act.
I 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 the younger listeners, they might know the name because back in 2020, might have been 2021, he had, 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'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 don't think we need to diverge into Theodore Roosevelt.
He certainly was nothing compared to his awful cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, who was a truly terrible person like Wilson.
But, you know, Theodore Roosevelt was kind of a blowhard.
He wanted war crimes trials for the defeated Germans.
He wanted the Kaiser put on trial.
He split the Republican vote in 1912 in order to enable Woodrow Wilson 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 interests of the average American ahead of those of foreign influencing groups.
But anyway, he was financed by that campaign, which was put together and financed by Jacob Schiff, the New York banker, who also bankrolled Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky and this Bolshevik Revolution.
So, you know, these are things that are to his great discredit.
And, you know, they are things that were good about him, but they're also, in a larger sense, he associated himself with movements that were to become even more destructive as time went on, including the war with Spain, America's real break, the first break with the traditional policy of neutrality, isolationism, and the Monroe Doctrine, which are those three things are a very sensible policy of the United States.
You know, the war with Spain was the first break, but that World War I was not the second and more important break.
But, you know, that was a catastrophic war for America, a war that had nothing to do with our interests.
And what we got out of it was the Philippines and Puerto Rico, both of which we could very well have done without.
When did you first encounter Conquest of a Continent?
And have you read it recently?
I'm just curious.
I've never reread it.
I encountered it in high school through the very person with whom I had the rude conversation at the Goldwater meeting.
And he was a friend of my brother's, and he would give me the names of books.
And that was a book that he recommended.
I read it.
I don't know where I found it, but it was in a library somewhere.
But the Conquest of the Continent and the Passing of the Great Race, the thing they're about the Nordic theory.
He was a Nordicist.
And that can be carried too far.
We don't want to alienate non-Nordic whites.
We want all branches of the white race, which have basically a shared race and a shared culture and a shared religion.
The Latins, the Celts, the Teutons, the Viking, the Nordics, the Slavs.
We need to stop these family feuds and work with each other as a team and not allow our enemies to play us off against each other.
But the thing about Madison Grant is that he approaches history both worldwide in passing the great race and also in case of America itself in conquest of the continent.
He wrote history from the standpoint of 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 nothing, you know, when the usual suspects set out to strangle the distribution of Madison Grant's book, Conquest of the Continent, that was the very point they picked up on.
The Anti-Defamation League sent out a directive that the book was not to be reviewed, it was to be suppressed in any way possible.
And they said that it's not what we want because it tells American history from the standpoint of the white, Anglo-Saxon, and related Europeans viewpoint.
And since then, we've never had that.
And you read the standard, if you read stuff they have in the schools now, it's written from a very destructive Marxist viewpoint, a viewpoint of people who are adversarial to society, who 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 of sort of a Jeffersonian nonsense view of the story of freedom.
It's what they call a Whig theory from the old party in Britain.
And it's the story of freedom and how freedom just broadened down.
We broke free of England.
We walked out the door and slammed the door shut on 12 centuries of Anglo-Saxon heritage from Britain, including everything that we believed politically, including specifically the Bill of Rights, which the template of the Bill of Rights was passed by the English Parliament in the 1690s and called the Declaration of Right.
But Jefferson and his wretched declaration have been used to create this idea that you hear about every 4th of July that we broke free from British tyranny and the tyranny of King George, who was not a tyrant, a very likable person, very admirable person.
But they've gotten that stuff wedged into the minds of Americans who've been taught that there's something glorious about the Declaration, which it's not.
The Constitution represented a breath of fresh air and common sense compared to the nuttiness of the Declaration.
And people recognize that.
Lincoln said that in a speech in Independence Hall on his way to his first inauguration that he always preferred the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution.
He put the Declaration first.
And That viewpoint has been used to write 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 certain educational and property achievements that every white male over the age of 21 could vote.
And then we broke free and freed the slaves 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 on and on.
It's all the story, the story of freedom.
You actually see books on American history that are called The Story of Freedom.
Well, that's not history.
You know, we can live, as all of us who worked with the American Renaissance under the shadow of Jared Taylor, as all of us know, you can live in a real nation.
You can live in a real people.
You can live with your race.
You cannot live in an idea.
An idea is nice, but 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 resumed, is that he interpreted and explained history 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 this 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 story of freedom garbage, unless they're promoting the outright Marxism of the woke people.
I believe that your mother was a member of DARA, correct?
Daughters of the American Revolution?
No, she was not.
She never joined.
She was entitled to be that.
She was of New England extraction.
Our ancestor was a captain at the Battle of John Leland, was a captain at the Americans at the Battle of Bunker 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 some years later when we went to Boston and she showed us a monument and explained it.
But she never joined.
My father could join the Sons of the American Revolution because he was a descendant of General Pickens in South Carolina.
But neither of them joined those organizations, but they were traditional Americans.
And my father, especially, had views 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 had a lot of heat about that.
Well, that's one of the things Madison Grant brings up.
And remember, this book came out actually in 1933.
And I want to say, when did Roosevelt get elected for his first term?
Is that 32 or was that?
1932 and inaugurated in 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 are 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 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 noted that a lot of the best stock were loyalists who then went to Ontario, to Canada, and were 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 to hear themselves talk.
And one of my stories is that when I joined the Sons of the American Revolution, when I was like 25, I was working for one of the large law firms in Atlanta.
And I was the youngest person in the Sons of the American Revolution.
They already, it was a geriatrics club.
And so they said, we want to make you membership chairman 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 was somebody I had known in college who was two years ahead of me, a Marine who'd come back and got law school and all this stuff.
Anyway, his name was Brooks.
I won't get his full name.
I think he's still alive.
He wouldn't want that.
But Brooks, very English first name.
He had a very English last name.
And he was Brooks IV.
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 ancestor that fought in the Revolution?
And he said, I did.
And I said, would you consider joining the Sons of American Revolution?
And he said, no, I don't qualify.
And I said, well, but you've had people fighting the revolution.
He said, my ancestors were all monarchists.
We had to flee the country.
We had to go to the Bahamas or somewhere.
We didn't come back till the 1830s.
And Brooks was a very elegant looking guy.
He's the kind of guy you'd want for your brother-in-law or you want your daughter to marry.
Very nice looking, very Nordic, very refined.
And I thought, probably, the people that look like Brooks did fight for the king.
Naturalization Acts 192400:06:46
That's an extraordinary observation.
I'd like to go back to Conquest of the Continent 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 in force 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, in 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 ineligible 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, save 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 Americans.
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.
And we read a lot in American, hear a lot of the American Renaissance conferences about IQ and how whites have a higher IQ than blacks.
And some people say, well, Asians, Chinese have a slightly higher IQ than whites and so on.
But, you know, the tie of loyalty is 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 except one living person, you know, there was only one mother of people living today who could in some sense 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 And 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, in my opinion, you're a profoundly sick and potentially very evil person.
And America's big into that.
It's been popularized now going on to Oprah Winfrey and badmouthing your parents.
And I hear people explaining how they failed in light because their daddy didn't go to their soccer games and all this kind of nonsense.
Anyway, I think you have to be loyal.
And those laws reflected that.
This country, just like you expect laws passed by Nigeria to favor Nigerians and not Norwegians.
Yeah.
No, I just, it's always interesting to think that even in the 1920s, high caste Indians, sorry, Vivek, you wouldn't have been counted as an American in 1920.
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 the span of, goodness gracious, your lifetime, your parents were born, what, in the, in the early part of the 20th century?
1908.
Okay.
I mean, this is, 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 we knew what and who could qualify as a citizen.
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 Francis Scott Key, we had this population that was largely contained to the South at the time of the passing of the 1924 Immigration Act because 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 Buffalo, Rochester, New York, and Baltimore and Chicago and St. Louis and of course 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 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 just talk about that a little bit.
Well, the censorship has very deep roots.
All nations have censorship.
Libertarians like to say they are in favor of wide open freedom of speech.
And I tend to be very much in favor of freedom of speech.
But there are always things 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.
Obvious Histories Omitted00:14:54
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 socially acceptable to go to a dinner party among the highest ranks of the aristocracy and have people use the ethnic pejoratives for non-Europeans.
But that changed, and people who had these attitudes were slowly sort of forced to change or were cold-shouldered from society.
And this got to the point.
There's another book that we all talk about, at least mention to people.
It's an excellent book.
It's a great book.
I couldn't put it down.
Written by an English aristocrat named some of them St. John or Sinjin, as the British upper classes pronounced St. John.
But he was Queen Victoria's ambassador to Haiti.
Survival 30 years.
And he wrote a book in the 1890s when he came back to Britain called Haiti or the Black Republic.
I've got a first edition, Sam, right here that I'm looking at.
It is a brilliant, brilliant book.
It's so witty.
It's so elegant.
It's the British at their best.
He has a wry sense of humor, but he has to write in the preface to the book.
He has to write.
He says in the 1890s that this book will upset many It runs against the popular belief because I do not think that Haitians will ever achieve the 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 of the diplomatic corps and to be a member of a distinguished aristocratic family, writing a memoir of his life in Haiti, he had to apologize and kind of soften the blow that people were going in England and the English-speaking 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 informed and very humorous book.
What's Haiti doing in 2026, mind you?
Do you know?
Sorry?
How's Haiti doing in the current year of 2026?
It's always worse.
I remember 30 or 40 years ago, we were meeting about 3 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, Port-au-Prince right now, in fact, no, 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 want to say 9% of the population of Haiti was brought to the United States.
TPS 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 to the history of Haiti that this diplomat.
It shows that I see these signs in my neighborhood that the Democratic Party has put there, among the leftists who are in its precinct committee, and they say, in this house, we believe.
You've probably seen those signs, and they have said, okay, one of them is, we believe in science.
They do not believe in science.
Quite the contrary.
They have a religion that is fact-free and it's completely divorced from science.
And Haiti is proof of everything that you hear at an American Renaissance conference.
Whites are blamed for everything nowadays.
I mean, there's this liberal religion of hating white people.
They managed to blame us for Haiti, too.
I've read a lot of books on Haiti.
And the modern line is that Haiti was ruined by French colonialism.
That's what ruined Haiti.
Blacks in 200 and 60 years, 225, 35 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 was always talking the anti-white line.
In a small course I had, he did that.
And I said, well, you know, there's a neighborhood, there's a country where there were no white people to run segregated schools or all these things you object to.
and where black people were unrestrained.
And it's called Haiti.
You know, there's no white people that discriminate.
That's before I found out that the new line was going to be that the French destroyed Haiti.
They're responsible for all the problems.
The 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 when we invaded Haiti in 1915 or whatever.
That's right.
Franklin Roosevelt wrote the new constitution.
But yeah, people who saw soft-hearted whites, whites who are infected with this sort of sickly disease, who 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 that no white man can ever be a citizen, he can ever own anything.
I want to say that actually doesn't, I want to say there's a line about white women, though, that I don't think they can own property, but it does allow them to be on the island.
I can't remember the exact word I'll have to look it up.
We'll have to do that book because that book says, 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 harrowing chapter in that book about lost white tribes about the southernists, 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 what is now Brazil.
And 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's a very interesting book into what happens when you lose.
And that's something that.
They didn't get the treatment that whites got, the genocide in Haiti.
If they want to talk about genocides, you know, every whites were killed in Haiti.
If you have an ironic sense of humor, a kind of you know, sort of sick sense of humor, you have to give Dessaline, the head of Haiti, after they finally ran the whites out, and the guy that wrote their constitution in 1804, he was a supreme white hater.
He hated whites more than the others.
And he called his generals in to a meeting at his palace, whatever he was living in.
He said that I want every white person on this island dead by the end of the week.
All of them.
Men, women, children, old babies, all of them.
I want them dead.
And so the generals had taken white wives because whites are sexually more attractive than other races, even to the other races.
And so they asked Dessale 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've carried out your orders.
And he said, Are all the whites dead?
And he said, Yes, they had brutally killed them on hooks where they struggled for hours, suspended on hooks through their rib cage, stuff like that.
And so he said, What about your wives?
And they said, Yeah, we killed them too.
And to show that Desalines had a sense of humor, he laughed and he said, well, one thing we can say is, you're better Haitians than you are husbands.
Neatness of white wickedness that you hear from the professors at Harvard, you know, National Public Radio.
This is just such obvious funk.
You wonder that people don't see through it.
It's like the talk about racial equality when I was in elementary 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 this day.
I know a lot of fine black people.
And I knew black people, we could find black people then who worked for my grandmother.
But I told this high school teacher who's telling us this, I laughed and he said, What's so funny?
I said, Well, surely this is a joke.
And he said, It is not a joke.
He was a former Peace Corps founder.
Science has proved it.
And I said the most obvious thing.
I said, You know, well, over the period of our separation and evolution, our skin colors have changed.
The texture of our hair has changed.
The shape of the skulls has changed.
All these things have changed.
How would it be that there'd be one organ of this species, humanity, of mankind, that never changed?
But it's obviously not true.
And when you ask questions of the teachers, I would ask them, well, who proved this?
They just get mad and say, science has proved it.
I said, well, who are the scientists?
Where did they prove it?
They'd get mad.
Nobody has ever proved it.
It's obviously not true.
And this business about whites being the demon race of history, this is just such obvious, obvious, the false stuff.
And the motive behind it 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 who promote it.
That's why we never get an ending at that.
We never have an ending at bat.
We're always wrong.
If we came to America and took the land from the Cherokees, we were evil.
The victimology clock starts here.
Whites victimized Indians.
They're never asking, well, who was 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.
They had taken another Indian tribe.
They'd taken another many other, 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 don't have the same rights as Cherokees.
You don't find them saying, how dare the Mexicans and Haitians and Nigerians come to America and try to take the land?
This is terrible.
No, it's how horrible white people are because they won't give 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 Renaissance, 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.
Yeah, the people who wanted to stress that, they wanted to attack the corporate memory, our collective memory of our people.
They wanted to erase it.
And they wanted history rewritten where we were airbrushed out of history.
Our interests, our history, Horse and Hengis, the leaders of the Anglo-Saxons landed in Britain, Cicero, Sophocles, none of these people matter.
They don't matter.
They're dead white whales.
That's where it was leading already when the Anti-Defamation League sought to suppress Madison Grant's book.
They did not want any talk of our collective memory.
They wanted us split up into 100 million individuals so that their team could win the game.
And that's, you know, there's a charge that judges give jurors in cases where intent must be proved.
And the charge is designed 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 suppress 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.
Well, I'll tell you, he considered, Madison Grant considered the 1924 Immigration Act, Sam, a second Declaration of Independence.
It's a correction of the Declaration of Independence.
It's a racial correction.
It's emphasizing the importance of race in the founding of our country, which was omitted by our founders until the 1790 Naturalization Act.
Well, they put it in the act, but they didn't put it in the Constitution.
And they allowed that windy, nonsensical Declaration of Independence.
Racial Correction00:06:24
I know I've shocked people and offend them.
And I know that our leader, Jared Taylor, who's much more pragmatic than I am, he would say that, oh, we can't start fighting a declaration.
But honestly, the thing is so crazy.
My father used to tell me anyone that believes that all men are created equal is a fit candidate 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 will be a little taller, another will be a little faster, one of them will be a little higher, better at Latin.
They're not equal.
We're not equal at all.
And then this business about it, and all men are guaranteed, I hear this on James Evers' show.
They have an ad that somebody is settling some group that we know that men were endowed by their creator with inalienable rights.
Well, I don't know that.
I don't believe that's true.
I don't believe in natural rights either.
So no, I don't have any inalienable rights.
People in Saudi Arabia don't have any.
Chinese don't have any.
Papuans in New Guinea don't have any.
The rights we have won 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 at Runnyme, the Magna Carta, the Puritans who put a stop to Charles I's pretensions of being a divine right king.
These are the people that won the right to a lawyer, the right to freedom of speech, the rights that are set out in the Declaration of Rights that our English ancestors wrote when they passed the law in the 1690s.
We have rights because of these specific ancestors of ours.
That's right.
And people like Papuan tribesmen or Igbos in 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 the wonder is not that America is in the terrible shape it's in and heading 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 inalienable rights begin to rust and falter and be excised from this experiment, which is the United States of America.
And I'd like to close real quick just by reading the final page of Conquest of 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 Breed, sir, when he talked about 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 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 the most part, unfitted.
Democracy is an excellent example.
It simply will not work among Asiatics.
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 race, shall 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 quarrel, 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 the Pacific by their immoral rivals, the Mongols.
This will be the final area, arena of the struggle between these two major divisions of man for world dominance, and the Nordic race in America may find itself bearing the main brunt.
In the meantime, the Nordic race that has built up and protected and preserved Western civilization needs to realize the necessity of its own solidarity and close cooperation.
Upon this mutual understanding rests 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 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, but the world has changed back.
I mean, we shouldn't be this, we just should end on an optimistic note.
Correct.
And, you know, the young people, I'd hope that we would get into the history of what life was like in the 50s and 60s in terms of trying to find the titles of books.
Well, go ahead and get it.
No, by all means, go ahead.
The Listening Act Matters00:10:42
Let me make the point that today, with the internet, the internet has been like the printing press.
It was when the printing press was invented and like the pistol.
The pistol leveled the playing field between the peasant and the aristocrat in the coat of armor.
And the printing press leveled 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 it all the time.
You hear it on National Radio, read the New York Times.
They want to go back to the way they had it 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 2% of the people would read that.
And the news was censored and controlled and edited and manufactured all to promote the interests of what the power structure wanted to say.
But there's a woman whose name needs to be registered among the great heroines of our race if we do prevail.
And her name is Jane Annunsen.
And she was married to a financial advisor and stockbroker in Reno, Nevada.
She ran what she called Shane'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 had dinner with her and her husband.
But she had the titles that you couldn't find out about, like books by Madison Grant and Lothrim Stoddard, the New Decalogue of Science, and things like this.
And she had them in English, French, and German.
And about every three months, if you were on her mailing list, you would get about an eight-page mimeographed list front and back of these books that she had found in used bookstores as she went around the world because she knew the books.
And she would go to used bookstores while her husband was meeting with 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 was no internet.
You couldn't find out from Huntley Brinkley or later Dan Rather of the New York Times.
They would never let you know these books.
But that's something her name should be held in great reverence because she managed to bird dog hundreds of people who went on to play roles as foot soldiers in our movement like me to the books that we needed.
And the other thing we should do, 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 in a further episode, Sam.
I've got to listen to that.
He was the only person supporting segregation.
It was all a Yankee view, by the way.
It was a rework of his race and reason.
Race and Reason is good, but race and reality is even better.
I agree.
But anyway, that's a very good book, and it's well written.
It's short and punchy and 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 Matt Robertson's dispossessed majority.
Another episode we've got coming up.
You're teasing.
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, 1900 to 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, 29.
The Negro by R.W. Schufeldt, which was published in 1908, who this is one of the, just this, this brilliant individual who at the time was considered one of the top scientists and naturalists.
And just these were ideas and these were the tomes.
These were the books that the upper classes were reading and engaging with.
I mean, these ideas were not 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 Conquest of a Continent that that vice, that that unbelievable censorship really came down, which Grant knew and Grant was really worried about because as he said, 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 of Europe.
That's very true.
He wrote that in 1933.
And it's just astonishing because I do consider Conquest of a Continent to be one of those really important books to read to understand how important stock and the racial stock was to basically creating the concept of the 1924 Immigration Act and to maintaining 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, dare we say it, racial aliens who were As we progressed, the world you were born into,
were they incompatible with the idea of what America was or what America had somewhat become as we began to at least admit and fix the era of not focusing on race as opposed to the concept of focusing on the nation being born of these ideals, as you pointed out, Rousseau and Locke and the Enlightenment.
And we're here to give you racial enlightenment 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 reality.
We're trying to be the physicians that will heal the existing, prevailing zeitgeist and the, you know, which prevails in the churches and schools and colleges and finance, everywhere in our society, because this prevailing culture and ideology is simply death for our people.
And it's intended to be death for our people.
It's intended to create, to cause menticide, to destroy people's minds, and then by destroying their minds, to physically destroy us.
Those are the stakes of this struggle.
And we cannot underestimate the hatred that our enemies have for our race.
And as you're aware, in the state of Virginia, in the last election, 2025, it came out that the black Democratic candidate for Attorney General had sent emails to people saying how much he wanted to see the white children, his Republican opponents, kill and to compel their mothers to hold them as they die.
He did.
And he won the election.
The base of the Democratic Party had no trouble with that statement.
No, and that's a huge elements of it, probably including the governor who gave the Democratic response to Trump's 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 future conversation.
I do think we should talk on Carlton Putnam'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 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 becausewehere at protonmail.com.
Once again, that email is becausewehere at protonmail.com.
Sam, how can our listeners get in touch with you?
Well, they have my email address, which is ridiculous.
It's too long, but it's March, like the month.
Bloom, like a flower, bloom, ling as in year, ling.
MarchbloomLing36 at gmail.com.
March bloomling36 at gmail.com.
Well, if you have trouble remembering 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 our children and our posterity to inherit.
And as Sam eloquently put it, there are no inalienable rights.
It's what you decide to fight for in this life that passes on to our children and our posterity.
So, Sam, if you have nothing else, I wish everyone.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for listening.
Your act of listening is an act of resistance.
And what we know about history, I think that the right shall win and the wrong shall not win.
And that which is true will stand the test of time.