A call for a spiritual elite

The formerly white nationalist site Occidental Dissent, now much closer to a conservative blog, got it all wrong. The nationalists are not to be blamed that the masses of whites are not supporting their own interests. It is the fault of the masses and the conservatives. The following article by Dr. William Pierce (photo below), “A Call for a Spiritual Elite: Conservatism or Radicalism?” was originally published in Attack! (no. 51, 1977):

Conservative and right-wing political groups are concerned with a number of problems these days: forced school busing, taxes, gun control, street crime, inflation. They oppose these things in various ways: through public demonstrations; through propaganda efforts with leaflets, magazines, or newspapers; through lobbying; and through election campaigns. And they gain members and supporters from those elements of the population who are also opposed to these things.

In general, the more concrete, specific, and immediate a problem is, the larger and more enthusiastic will be the public response to right-wing efforts. Some of the ad hoc organizations opposed to forced school busing claimed more than a million members at one time. The National Rifle Association, which is certainly the principal group opposed to gun control, has more than a million members now, I believe.

The people who joined the anti-busing groups did so, generally, because they felt immediately threatened by a specific and concrete menace. The people who support the NRA because of its opposition to gun-registration and gun-confiscation laws feel—and rightly so—that their fundamental right of self-defense is in immediate danger of being taken away from them.

When the issue becomes less immediate or more abstract, right-wing groups can still gain support—but not so much. American foreign policy in the Middle East and in Rhodesia is horrendous, but there is far less organized opposition to it than to busing or gun control.

Even more abstract issues, such as miscegenation and non-White immigration, still bring forth a good bit of right-wing rhetoric, but there is almost no public response to this rhetoric.

Now, everyone has observed this, and the consequence is that people or groups who want to win public support for themselves, for whatever reason, honest or dishonest, concentrate their propaganda on immediate, concrete, specific problems. That wins elections. And it brings the contributions rolling in to the money-hungry, “conservative,” fundraising outfits.

But, interestingly enough, the immediate, concrete, specific problems remain with us and continue to grow worse. Why is that?

Why is it that with so many people belonging to or supporting organizations opposed to forced busing, we have every year more and more school districts being ordered by the Federal courts to bus White children into Black schools?

Why, with all the rhetoric against taxes and with so many conservatives and right wingers supporting anti-tax organizations, do income taxes and social security taxes and property taxes become worse practically every year?

Actually, there are two ways of approaching the question. We can say we have more and more busing every year, despite all the opposition to it, because the enemies of White America want to mongrelize the country, and they are stronger, with all their money and their control of the media, than the busing opponents, and they have slipped their allies into the Federal judiciary over the years, and they have brainwashed the public, and conservatives won’t work together, and so on. And we can answer the questions about taxes and gun control the same way.

But answers of that sort, about the mechanics of the struggle, are not what I’m interested in tonight. We have a general and fundamental question before us, which is: Why do the enemies of White America keep on winning? Why are they stronger than their opponents? How is it that they have been able to slip the sack over our heads so easily? Why does the White majority always lose?

The answer we want to understand tonight is this: Right wingers, and conservatives, and the White majority generally, have been losing battle after battle—and are obviously losing the whole war as well—simply because all they are really willing to fight for are immediate, concrete, and specific things—and, in particular, things which affect them personally. That is the answer we must understand.

I was talking to our guest, Ed Fields, after our last meeting, and he told me about a speech he gave at an anti-busing rally in Louisville, Kentucky, last year. He had been talking for about 10 minutes, he said, about the importance of preserving the White race and saving White culture and stopping non-White immigration and halting intermarriage, when he was interrupted by a shout from someone in the crowd who yelled, “We don’t care about all that crap! Tell us how to stop this busing!”

Now, I believe that was an extreme case. Most opponents of busing and certainly most ordinary, decent White people do care about the things Ed Fields was talking about. They just don’t care enough about them to leave their TV sets and go to rallies and risk being labeled “racists” by a yapping pack of Jewish media hounds and their liberal camp followers. They’ll only put out that effort and take that risk to oppose something which they see as an immediate and personal threat.

So, the big conservative and right-wing groups concentrate on those things—the immediate, concrete, and personal things—and the White race keeps losing the war.

The problem is a matter of motivation, of priorities, of values.

The great majority of our people who are not liberals—that is, who have not joined the enemy—are not really concerned with winning the war. They just want to avoid becoming personal casualties. No army in history with that sort of motivation has ever won a war. And we won’t either.

When a man has a personal problem to solve—a truly personal problem—then self-interest is a proper motivation. But when a whole race is faced with a major problem, self-interest is no longer a proper motivation, and it will no more solve the problem for the race than an attitude of “every man for himself” will win a war—or even a battle—for an army.

And yet self-interest is what the conservative and right-wing organizations keep appealing to, because that is what gets an immediate response.

The essence of the problem is this: The man who is against busing is generally a man who is fairly well satisfied with the other things around him. Let’s solve this busing problem, he thinks, and then I can go back to my TV. Or let’s defeat this gun-control law, and then I can go back to what I was doing before.

If you read conservative publications, you are overcome by the stench of this attitude. American Opinion, the magazine of the John Birch Society, reeks of it. And so does the weekly tabloid published by Liberty Lobby.

They are outraged about the Federal bureaucracy because of the way it interferes in their lives. They don’t want the government meddling with their property rights. They want to be left alone so they can continue making money and spending money the way they want and doing what they want without interference.

And about the last thing they want to do is have a revolution. Why, that would be even more of a nuisance than busing, gun control, and all the Federal meddlers put together. That would really keep them away from their TV.

Remember, there are literally tens of millions of people out there, a substantial portion of them conservative, patriotic Americans, who really care whether Liz will leave John and go back to Dick again and whether the Dodgers will win the World Series.

I said it’s a problem of values. Let me give you a couple of specific examples. In American Opinion a few months back there was an article complaining about Federal forced-housing efforts. The author didn’t want anyone to think he was a racist, and he said that no true conservative has any objection to Black neighbors, so long as they are good, quiet, middle-class Blacks. He said conservatives would rather have hardworking, middle-class Blacks for neighbors than poor Whites, or, as he put it, welfare-class Whites.

The conservative objection to forced housing, he said, is only that it is forced, that conservatives don’t want to be told they have to have Blacks for neighbors, especially dirty, disorderly, welfare-class Blacks, whom they regard in exactly the same light as poor Whites.

Well, we certainly must admit that there are some Blacks who would make quieter, cleaner, more orderly neighbors than some Whites. And if that’s all we care about—that and not having the government tell us what to do—then we have to agree with the Birch Society.

But we believe—all of us here believe, I hope—that there is much, much more at stake in the forced-housing issue than property values and freedom from government interference. We have a set of values and a motivation which are fundamentally different from those of the Birch Society. And yet so many people can see only the superficial resemblance between us and the Birchers that comes from our having similar stands on certain issues.

Let me give you another example. In this week’s issue of Newsweek magazine there is a guest editorial by a White conservative complaining about the ridiculous extent to which the courts and the Federal bureaucracy—especially the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—have gone to assure minorities a better-than-even break. Reverse discrimination, he says, is un-American.

Of course, we’ve all heard the Jews yelling the same thing, as soon as Blacks started demanding their share of jobs in those occupations in which Jews are overrepresented, such as journalism and university teaching. With the Jews it’s clearly selfishness, pure and simple, because they’re all for reverse discrimination when it’s the White plumber or electrician or sheet-metal worker who has to give up his job to a Black or a Chicano or an Asiatic.

But I don’t believe the White conservative writing for Newsweek is worried that some Negro is going to get his job. His worry is simply that the Jews and the guilt-ridden liberals and the corrupt politicians who cater to the minority vote are overdoing the “equality” racket and are generating a backlash among Whites which is undoing what the Federal equality laws were supposed to do, namely, to create a society without discrimination of any kind, a color-blind society.

He sees the EEOC fanatics stirring up a hornet’s nest of hostility, of racial conflict, of divisiveness. Forcing equality on people, he says, is disuniting the United States and unmelting the melting pot. And that means trouble and unrest ahead. And, like conservatives in general, he doesn’t want trouble. He wants unity and prosperity and peace at any price.

Now, perhaps we should try to be charitable and not accuse such conservatives of being motivated by nothing but egoism and materialism. Perhaps the fellow writing in Newsweek is basically a patriot who simply wants a strong and peaceful and united United States above all else, completely aside from what these things will mean to his own income and safety and living standard. And perhaps he really believes that a truly color-blind government, which discriminates neither in favor of Blacks nor Whites, will make America strong and peaceful. Maybe he really believes that. I am sure a lot of conservatives do.

But even if they were right—and, in the long run, they certainly cannot be—their values and their priorities are totally wrong.

Prosperity and harmony are nice. Peace is nice—but not peace at any price, certainly not peace at the price of racial mongrelization.

And, in fact, our values are so totally different from conservative values that I say we would not even be interested in peace if we could be guaranteed that it would not lead to mongrelization. Not even if the country or the world could be divided up into little enclaves for Blacks and Whites and Chicanos and Jews and so on, every one respecting the rights of his neighbors and staying inside his own boundaries. That, again, is the dream of a conservative soul, and it is a false dream.

Our dream is a progressive dream, a dream of unlimited progress over the centuries and the millennia and the eons which lie ahead of us. It is no conservative dream of peace, no sheeplike dream of ease and consumption and safety, but a dream of the achievement of our Destiny, which is Godhood. It is the only dream fitting for men and women of our race; it is the spirit of the Creator, it is the Universal Urge within us, expressing itself through our race-soul.

You know that is true; you know that is the only dream for us, that what I am telling you is right. Yet, when you leave here tonight it will be all too easy, I am afraid, for you to slip back into old ways of thinking, into wrong ways.

I’m afraid of that because I receive letters all the time from our members, who’ve been paying their dues and receiving their bulletins regularly, who apparently do not understand what is written in those bulletins. They are teachers and policemen and lawyers—people for whom our message certainly should not be too abstract or too complicated to grasp—but they are also people thoroughly enmeshed in contemporary society, thoroughly involved, every day, with other people whose values and ideas all come from their TV sets.

And because our values are so different from the TV values, it may be hard for some of our people to make the transition, to clear the conservative cobwebs out of their minds, so that our dream, the dream of the White race-soul, comes through loud and clear.

It is easier for us, here in our little community, to understand our Truth, and it may be necessary for many of our other members, scattered all across the continent—all across the world now, in fact—to also have the moral reinforcement which comes from living and working together with others who have the same dream before they can achieve the same degree of understanding we have.

I am sure that will be necessary for some, but not for all. For some the dream is strong enough so that it is sufficient for them to receive our publications and listen to our meeting tapes—that is, to be members of our community in spirit, even if they cannot be here in the flesh.

But the problem that remains for us is this: our dream is a radical dream, and the dream of the masses is a conservative dream.

We want a revolution which brings about a permanent transformation of the values and priorities and goals of our society and lays the groundwork for the building of a whole new world. They want a quick and easy end to certain concrete and specific annoyances, so that they can go back to their TV.

Even the least selfish and most thoughtful of the conservatives base their programs entirely on the TV values, the TV philosophy, the TV religion. At most, they want to annul the social and racial changes of the last few decades and restore what existed before the last war.

So this great gulf lies between us and them, between our Truth and the materialist-conservative view of life. And yet, they are our people. It is from them, from the great masses, that we must recruit the new members upon which the growth and even the continued existence of our community depend.

We certainly have not reached the point where we can afford to wall ourselves and our families off from the rest of society, where we can isolate our community from the Jewish Babylon around us and depend upon our own reproductive powers to continue building our community. We may never reach that point. So we must bridge the gulf.

How? Do we put on a conservative mask and continue putting out leaflets and publishing a newspaper which talk about busing and gun control and racial job quotas and the media monopolies and the other things conservatives are interested in—as we have been doing—but without the radical overtones which frighten or confuse or bore them?

That is, do we deradicalize our public image? Do we become a sort of conservative front group?

Remember, we talked a couple of meetings ago about making it easier and less frightening for prospective recruits to join us. We talked about the necessity of growing faster than we are growing now.

But there is also something else to remember. And that is that there are dozens of conservative groups already out there, experienced, well-financed, well-organized conservative groups. And at least some of them are run by real conservatives, men who think and feel the same way those do they are trying to recruit.

Should we imagine that we, outsiders who think and feel on an entirely different wavelength, can be more successful at that game? I think not.

And even if we were more successful, by being cleverer or more energetic or more ruthless than the others, would we have a real success?

We would have a structure without a foundation, a structure held together by pretense. Is that what we want for the long haul ahead? I think not.

Now, I am certainly not ruling out the use of front groups and ad hoc organizations. They are perfectly good and useful tools, and we expect to use them at a certain stage of our development.

But for the achievement of our long-range goals, for the principal vehicle for our revolution, for the organization which embodies the fundamental Truth expressed in our Affirmation, we must have a foundation of the hardest stone, not of sand. And that stone must be cemented together with truth, not pretense.

We do not bridge the gulf between our community and the masses of our people by pretending to be something we are not. If we have made a mistake in the past, it has been trying to sit on two stools at the same time, trying to be both conservative and radical. And if we are to correct that mistake in the future, it must be to abandon conservative pretenses. It must be to become completely truthful in our recruiting efforts.

So, let us light a beacon of truth and let us always hold out a friendly hand of understanding to the masses of our people who do not yet share our outlook. But let us make no compromises with the falsehoods which now govern their lives. Let us make no pretense that we believe that busing or taxes or racial quotas are really fundamental issues. Let us make it clear to everyone that these things are only symptoms of the disease, and one does not cure a disease by treating its symptoms.

What this means for us now and in the near future—that is, as long as we are working through one organization and are not yet ready to use fronts—is this: We will concentrate our resources on fundamentals and will be obliged to a very large extent to let other groups attack the symptoms. We will concentrate on reaching the masses of our people with our Truth in its most fundamental form, and we will let the National Rifle Association fight gun control and the National States Rights Party fight busing, and we wish them well.

Another way of saying this is that we will be uncompromisingly radical rather than conservative. Of course, if the word “radical” still frightens you, you may substitute “fundamental”—which means exactly the same thing—for it.

And does this make sense when we so desperately need to grow faster than we have been? Does it make sense to try to reach people ruled by materialism with a message which is essentially spiritual? Does it make sense to be more radical when some of our own members even now are still thinking in conservative terms?

Well, let’s concede first that, although we will be preaching to the masses, we understand that only a minority, only a spiritual elite, will be capable of responding to our message. We want to light a beacon and we want to make it burn as brightly as we can, so that it will cast its rays over all our people, but we know that only a few will actually see our light, will actually understand and respond to our Truth. We concede that.

But this is the way it has always been. Every great and positive revolution of human history, every conscious step upward on the never-ending Path of Life symbolized by our Rune, has been the work of a minority, of an elite. Masses don’t make revolutions—determined and committed minorities do.

We don’t hope to make revolutionary idealists out of the egoistic and materialistic masses, but we do hope to awaken and inspire and recruit that minority of our people in which the Divine Spark already burns brightly enough to illuminate their souls and their minds so that they can grasp our Truth. And the way to do that is to present our Truth to them as purely and as plainly and as clearly as we possibly can—not to dress it in a conservative disguise, which leads only to confusion.

We want everyone to know that we understand that what’s really important is not whether we can elect a government which won’t try to impose racial quotas on us or whether we can achieve domestic tranquility but whether the Truth that is in the race-soul of our people shall overcome the alien falsehoods which rule us now, so that that Truth can guide us once again to the upward Path, to the Path of the Creator’s Self-Realization, and so that we can once again become agents of the Universal Will—except this time fully conscious agents—and resume our never-ending ascent toward our ordained Destiny.

That’s what’s important, and that is what must be achieved. Then everything else—all the conservative goals—will either have been taken care of automatically or they will have become irrelevant.

So, once again, the immediate question before us is not whether to be more radical or more conservative in order to grow faster, but how to present our radicalism—our Truth—in the best, in the clearest, in the most appealing way, how to avoid confusion, how to minimize negativism, how to reassure those who are timid and hesitant.

We understand that we are casting our net very wide and expecting to catch only a few. But we want to be sure that we do catch all those who are fit for catching. And the way to catch those who are fit is with the pure and unadulterated Truth.

Hate movement or survival movement?

The axial year of the 20th century was not 1989. In fact, there were two axial years: 1919 and 1945.

After 1919 most European nationalisms were discredited. And after 1945 all ethnic self-esteem among the white people has been considered anathema in the West.

Occidentals tried thus to revaluate all traditional European values after the First and Second World Wars. White Nationalism can be understood as a reaction against a suicidal reaction. The “white” element in WN is a reaction against the westerners’ reaction to do everything in reverse from Hitler’s Germany (even if with that reversal the train headed by Europeans speeds up right into the precipice). And the “nationalist” element in WN is a reaction against the westerners’ reaction to do everything in reverse from the European nationalisms (even if with such reversal we are welcoming, into our lands, those Muslims who this very day are enmeshed in civil wars at the Middle East).

Just how far have the forces that reacted against the World Wars gone? In the blogosphere I found an hilarious thought-experiment by Sam Dickson:

Our race is longing, our American people is longing, for a home of their own. Is it extreme for us to ask for a homeland for our own people? Is this a hateful proposal, as those who desire our genocide tell us? We need to understand that as far as the establishment that misrules our people all over the world is concerned, the only acceptable position on the future of the white people is genocide.

To those who think this is a nutty comment, I would suggest that you attend the next town hall meeting of your local Congressman or Senator. He need not be a liberal, not some crazed Methodist on Marx or a Marxist on meth, like Hillary Clinton. He could be a white Christian Southern conservative Republican Congressman. During the question and answer period, go to the microphone and say: “Congressman, I am concerned about the tide of non-white immigration, and the low white birthrate in this country and around the world. I’m concerned that our race will become extinct.”

And just see the reaction of that Christian, Southern, conservative member of the establishment. See how you will be shouted down by his followers. See how the guard will be instructed to come and take you out of the room, because you have committed an act of hate by suggesting that your race should be anything other than exterminated.

It is considered per se immoral to advocate the survival of our race. We need to think about that when weighing the claims of our enemies to be the voices of love and tolerance.

That the enemies of our people have managed to sell white nationalism as a “hate movement” speaks volumes about the inversion of reality the westerners suffer in modern day.

“Modern day Left and Right are the exact same”

Excerpted from a longer, 14-17 February exchange from The Political Cesspool (TPC), “Jamie Kelso gets run out of CPAC”. James Edwards, who hosts the TPC, wrote:

You’re in favor of two men being allowed to get married? CPAC thinks you’re just swell, and will even let you be an official sponsor of the event. But don’t you dare suggest that it’s best if white people marry other whites, or that white people have interests just like blacks and Hispanics do, or you’ll be treated like a pariah.

Notice the Ron Paul supporters who grow increasingly hostile because Jamie is wearing a Campaign for Liberty button. At the end several of them physically confront him and make it clear that if he doesn’t remove the button, they will. At which point Jamie decided it would be best to leave.

Jamie gets an A for effort, but this video makes it clear that the “let’s just infiltrate the GOP and conservative organizations” approach isn’t viable. These days, “conservatives” are even more anti-White than liberals are. And more and more of them actually believe the nonsense they spout about Equality and there’s only one race, the human race, blah blah blah. So I don’t think we’ll be “taking over” the Republican party in this lifetime.

Still don’t think the CPAC attendees embarrassed themselves enough? Read the stories below.



Selected responses to “Jamie Kelso gets run out of CPAC”:

JB says: Look at all the young whites here who are completely eaten up with guilt and self-hate. How embarrassing! God help us if these dweebs represent the modern-day “conservative” movement. They’re about as conservative as Tim Wise.

Jim says: LOL. That valley girl accent is hilarious! You can tell that chick spends a great deal of time wrapped up in serious thought.

Kievsky says: JB, My thoughts exactly. What’s the difference between them and Tim Wise? None. These are establishment types who plan to make comfy careers out of politics. They don’t represent the conservatism of the man on the street.

Had enough yet? says: White people don’t need enemies when our own people have learned through self-hate, white guilt and false history being taught to them by the media establishment blessed by the “Gods” in Government. The enemy is within. And until that is corrected we are all doomed to a slow painful extinction and not just within America either.

Jerry says: These are privileged whites who have never lived in mixed communities opining about how great diversity is. I once had a conversation with a fellow who claimed that he “loved” diversity. When I pointed out to him that he lived in a town that was 98% white and upper-middle class, he claimed that he and his wife had “always wanted” to move to a more diverse area, but the “schools” prevented this. Yeah, right.

Vic says: Just reconfirms my opinion that it’s too late in the game for this. It’s like trying to patchwork a ship with its bow completely submerged and stern straight up towards the sky. Do whatever you can to save yourselves and stay out of the way of these fools and their folly. They won’t learn until it’s too late… just like the Rhodesians and South Africans.

Joe says: Watching this video is the equivalent of having your teeth pulled out. Unfortunately, it’s not these kids who get bussed to gang-ridden schools. It’s not these kids who have to watch their once thriving neighborhoods self-destruct right in front of them. And it’s not these kids who will be future polar-bear victims. Hey CPAC, for your next convention, why don’t you hold it in downtown Detroit? Or even better, why not make it an international affair and host it in South Africa? Seeing these little punks get a taste of their own medicine would be sweet poetic justice.

Jerry says: Couple more points: The facial expressions of the airhead blonde to the left are priceless. It simply drips of self-hatred and self-righteousness. Also, the tall, thin, effeminate fellow is your standard, run-of-the-mill president of his college’s Young Republican Club. These people wouldn’t be caught dead on “Martin Luther King Blvd” at night, and when they get married and live in D.C., they will send their kids to private, mostly white/yellow schools. They are zombies, the walking dead. Thankfully, they will probably have only 0-1 kids. If we can’t convert them, we need to outbreed them.

Shocked says: The Frankfurt School has certainly worked on the young White mind in this country.

Ken says: Wow, that was painful to watch! That should be preserved for future generations because that is a prime example of how completely and totally brainwashed and defeated many whites have become. Just the slightest hint that whites might have something worth preserving and it’s time to burn the heretic at the stake! Unbelievable!

Clint says: Jamie did a great job debating with that hostile crowd. It just shows how dear the sheeple hold onto the “diversity” mantra. I highly doubt they would be so animated on any other topic of conversation. I agree with the other fellow that Jamie’s message would have been better heard had he a few more supporters chiming in. However, he has a very non-threatening style and did great in my opinion; anyone else would have been thrown out much earlier. Could you see the smoke coming out of the pretty brunette’s head, forced to think for a few nano-seconds?
The side-burned guy was playing tough in front of the cameras, dropping r-bombs on everyone. How lame.

Junghans says: These young White “conservative” wimps are pathetic victims of their inculcated intellectual illusions. A Negro racial reality check may eventually make them a little more explicitly aware, we hope. Talk about being their own worst enemies, these White bunnies certainly are…

Greg says: OMG, these people are supposed to be “conservatives”? Yikes, they sound more like liberals, and in fact I can respect the liberals more so because at least they don’t take one thing and call it another.

Louise says: This completely turned my stomach. For we older folks, this is the generation that is going to be taking care of us. That is downright scary.

Jeff says: Ever notice how effeminate young white men are these days? If they are not gay, they are metro-sexual. Or maybe masculine white men are too preoccupied with sports and don’t attend these types of conferences. Let me know what you all think.

Randall says: It’s really hard to believe that our young Americans are that stupid.

johnson says: We are witnessing the largest genocide in the history of the world, the genocide of white people through control of the financial systems, the media, and learning institutions. Time to turn the tide.

Political Optimist says: Okay, after watching that video, I’ve now reconsidered my previous comment [not included in this collection—Chechar]. I still believe we must work within the mainstream. But man, are you sure he wasn’t at a Daily Kos gathering?

Von Riemann says: This is why the right-wing are losers, and always have-been and will be and fail…

I have always been against that Jewish Freemason, Ron Paul, and exposed him from day one since Stormfront was promoting this bastard, and predicted what Ron Paul is doing today against Whites who supported him—was going to happening, and it is. This is only further proof, how Ron Paul acted against Jamie Kelso, why he is our worst enemy.

icr says: The masses follow elites—that’s always been the case and always will be the case. Read Sam Francis and James Burnham. Trying to destroy the hegemony of Cultural Marxism by recruiting typical white American conformists at bars and football games (or even Ron Paul rallies) is strictly the stuff of satire. Before you can get anywhere you need roughly a hundred or so guys like Jared Taylor and James Edwards. Try to remember that 99+% of media, academia, business and government (including the military) is either hostile or cowed into silence.

Jeff says: I actually commend those kids for listening and engaging with Kelso. It was the Campaign for Liberty guys who kept pestering him about being a racist. I thought those people were for freedom.

Yankee born Southerner says: Here’s a perfect example of public education at its finest. We have guilt because of slavery. Let’s review: nobody alive today was a slave. Likewise, nobody alive today was a slave owner. We fought an unjust war supposedly to end slavery. Which is a blatant lie. But the truth wasn’t taught when I attended high school and that’s over 40 years ago. So, it doesn’t matter as much if you’re Republican or Democrat. What matters is you know your own history. And don’t be afraid to take a little heat when somebody tells you to take your button off. Mr. Kelso, thank you for your example!

icr says: “I still believe we must work within the mainstream” [wrote above another commenter]. The USG is currently fanatically devoted to a world-view that can best be described in shorthand as a mix between the Wall St Journal pro-global business and open borders stance, and the ideology one would find in the Office for Multi-Cultural Affairs at a major liberal arts university. This view has hardened into an ideology and has intertwined itself so thoroughly in the popular mind with what it means to be “American” that nothing short of an intense crisis or a complete breakdown will bring about any change. Certainly, electing this or that Republican makes no difference.

Duane says: Is this country completely finished? Did you notice how wimpy and faggy these white males were? Do you really feel bad when reading in the newspaper when this type meets a brutal bloody end at the hands of the savages they are insanely defending? Would any normal White male with any normal attitudes feel any normal protective instincts toward these female psychos? The USA and the West are completely finished…

Von Riemann says: I knew it was just a matter of time before the Republicans exposed themselves, not just against the whites who put them into power from day 1, but against our very unalienable rights/constitution that they toted as their foundation—and show their true Orwellian tyrannical faces. In these peoples minds, the only ones who are Americans and can have a voice are the (PC).

It’s time to build our race into a political machine, and not an economic one like the two Kosher parties. The mainstream parties are not about our preservation, but our genocide and money/getting-rich—which is why they are selling us out bit-by-bit to the one-world-order.

Jamie Kelso, in my opinion wasn’t defeated and ran-off like these Capital-Marxist right-wing thugs claim with glee happened. Rather Jamie Kelso brought forth invaluable information to our struggle and proved the points visually of what we are trying to make to our people about the system.

Edgardus de la Vega says: Yes indeed folks: undoing their deracinated mindsets will be quite a challenge for us. Nevertheless, our communication on the issue of white preservation will make gains as our race continues to shrink. The apparent evidence of our gradual demise will itself do much of the talking.

Adam FreeMan says: These sheltered brain-washed children need our patience and understanding even though we all want to take them to the woodshed and beat the crap out of them. They have been taught that if they want to succeed and get ahead, they must walk the multicultural line. Many of them have eaten the poisoned apple and really believe what they are saying. We must be ready when reality opens their eyes (muggings, rapes, no jobs for whites) to get them to see that we are their friends. So teach them what they are ready to learn when they are ready to learn it and don’t get personal.

Dedalus says: Great comments. In fact, they are the perfect tonic to this depressing video. At the very beginning, when that blonde guy sitting down asked “What if she wanted to reproduce with a Black guy…”

Blockheads with just enough brains to know how to make money and that’s enough for them.

Von Riemann says: Anyone who continues with the failed right-wing supports these people and what they stand-for against us and our country, and supports/agrees-with our white-genocide and as corrupt as they are... You are not going to infiltrate the Republican party—Jamie Kelso just tried respectfully and legally and look what they did to him the first minute he didn’t tote the party lines and defended his people and told the truth about what is going on.

John St.C. says: First off, we need to recognize the exact nature of that whole CPAC/Human Events/neocon/YAF/Buckleyite crowd. As was pointed out, these are nothing but yuppies whose “conservatism” centers solely around their worries over daddy’s money. Secondly, their embarrassing ignorance concerning all matters racial defines their overall mentality. After all, if you don’t care about the survival of your own race, who gives the tiniest particle of a damn about tax programs?

2ndAmdMan says: This just goes to prove how hard (if not impossible) it is to have a conversation with liberal minded people. Those rich snobby (never worked a day in their lives) “conservative brats” really seem to just be “liberals” at heart. If they have any muscle—they bought it at a gym. If they have any brains—they got it from their ancestors who they are now “throwing under the bus”. They more afraid of being called a “racist” than they are of the “boogie man”.

Denise says: Jamie did a really good job—but he did not answer the most glaring error: the Ottoman Empire [actually] created nothing.

wn girl says: Good job, Jamie! It is sad to see young whites who are so ignorant about their issues and history, but Jamie did a great job with the conversation.

JB says: Did y’all notice the older guy who made the silly “Harry Truman was a Klansman” comment?

Bruce in Vancouver says: That was very bad. Some of the comments from these people are incredible. Did you hear that guy saying that the blacks arrived here the same time Whites did and then they went about building the country with their bare hands? LOL. What an idiot. Where do they get this from? I already knew we’re in trouble, but that was just depressing to hear.

Larry says: Trying to “infiltrate” the GOP in hopes of using it to advance the causes of white people is ridiculous [Larry responds to an Occidental Dissent fan]. It’s time to abandon all notions of conventional “right” and “left.” They are essentially the same ideology wrapped in a different package. Both want universal democracy, both support multiculturalism, both believe it is wrong for the government to step in and promote traditional values, both are completely worthless. The interests of our people rise above all else. Everything else pales in comparison.

The way I see it, we are so far gone as a nation that only outright white nationalism/traditionalism can save us. Therefore, any attempt at infiltrating a decaying political party in order to get it to be slightly less degenerate is insufficient and a waste of time.

Go ahead and keep reading the nonsense at Occidental Dissent and donating your hard-earned money to libertarian organizations and GOP candidates, you might as well be pissing it down a toilet. Here is my New Year’s resolution in regards to politics: If a group or cause or candidate is not 100% pro-white, I will not donate my time or money to it. A candidate who agrees with us on most issues but who states publicly that he abhors “racism” does more harm to our cause than good.

Vick says: Kelso did an excellent job, and even though those kids all appeared to reject his message, they were listening, and they were probably hearing what he had to say for the first time. As they get older they will remember their encounter with him and start to see the truth of what he’s saying. I do have to criticize Kelso for not having a good answer to the tall kid who kept saying that “America was also built by blacks and hispanics” and so on. (And by the way, it’s far too easy to criticize someone for how they do in live, personal debates like this—doing well in these situations is a talent, really.)

My response to the tall kid would have been to point out that up until recently (1964), this country was over 80% white. Yes, blacks and hispanics etc. can lay a certain claim to having built America, but the truth is that this country historically was predominantly a white country, and the white majority, such as it still exists, still has the right to democratically determine its future in a racially conscious way, if they so desire.

Tom says: Ron Paul owes Kelso an apology. It was Paul’s man who had Kelso thrown out.

Horace Blossom says: If there is anyone so deluded as to think that the Republican types have a genuine interest in defending and advancing Western Civilization and the racial group responsible for it, this video should disabuse him of that piece of brain-sick lunacy. Perhaps most alarmingly revealed in this video is that these “right-thinking” young people have only thread-bare, outworn arguments to support their lunatic, self-annihilating vagaries. It apparently has never occurred to them that their empty slogans and vapid catch-phrases need examining. Usually, I find myself lamenting that my life has extended into its seventh decade, but this exhibition at least enables me to feel some gratitude that I made it without having been infected with such lunacy as theirs.

Larry says: [Responding to an Occidental Observer fan whose post I omitted in this collection]: Modern day “left” and “right” are the exact same. They have the same end goal in mind. Both envision an America with universal democracy, “equality,” no racial identity, etc. They only disagree on how to get there and whether that America will be ruled by bureaucrats or corporations. A new law that will serve as a minor headache to illegals here and a symbolic ban against Affirmative Action there are not anywhere close to what it will take to restore this nation.

If all immigration—legal and illegal—were to end tomorrow, this would only delay America’s descent into a third-world, majority non-white nation. You will never, not in a million years, see the GOP advocate what is needed to turn back the tide. If you want to pursue conventional party politics, go for it. I admire your efforts. I just think it is a hopeless waste of time and think our efforts are best directed at building up explicitly white nationalist organizations.

The real path to power is to put together networks that can step in to fill the void that will be left when the current system inevitably collapses.

By the way, defeating amnesty is another non-issue. Amnesty will have virtually no long-term demographic impact. The children of illegals are already citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status. If anything, amnesty will be a good thing because it will instantly flood the voting booths with millions of Hispanics rather than spreading out the inevitable over the next several decades. It might be the shock that mainstream conservatives need to wake them to the reality that they cannot maintain their way of life if they become a demographic minority.

Charles says: I have enormous respect for Jamie Kelso for going down to CPAC to advance a racial awareness. This is probably the very first time these people have been exposed to ideas like the ones Jamie is espousing.

At best all they have read or heard are vulgar caricatures about Klansmen and neo-Nazis trying to exterminate other races. The fact that these people listened to Jamie so long is the only encouraging thing in this video. Let’s hope as they grow older and these people will grow wiser they will learn to seek political opinions that didn’t come to them from talk radio, their television set, NPR, or any other MSM outlet.

Until the internet came along there were no real dissenting opinions available to most people. That’s changing thanks to blogs and radio shows like this one and the one Jamie Kelso has.

Matt says: Oh my God! These young people! Take a look at them—they all look like punch drunk boxers as they reel off their PC mantras! How tragic! How terribly tragic! Perhaps T. S. Eliot was quite right after all: “This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.”

Eurobeing says: I will admit that he didn’t exactly have them out of his hand. However, if you look at them closing in you will notice that they were actually listening to Jamie. The young fellow who listened to Michael Savage said that he is aware of white fear and suppression.

When the big goon jumped in and took Jamie’s badges he was doing what he was told. Which tells me that someone is paying a lot of money to keep a lid on all of the truth tellers.

I bet a lot of these people went home and really thought about what Kelso said. My guess his comments have their own half life and will exist in the minds of these young dweebs for quite some time.

Also Kelso was just beginning to address the issue of white guilt for slavery when he was so rudely interrupted. If he would have had a few more minutes I think he would have made some real progress. He may have already.

more of same says: I sent money a few times to C4L. I’m glad I stopped. The mailers I get from them will go right into the recycling bin after this. I’ll send my money to TPC instead.

Joanne Dee says: The first message is: Jamie is a brave and honorable man. The second message is: liberty, with this crowd, is as much about free speech as Stalin’s Russia. The third message is: trying to persuade this group that white self-interests should be paramount is an unwinnable battle. They truly never experienced the real White America and they believe everything they’ve been told. My final thought is: wow, these kids are brainwashed! The only thing positive I found is: they will realize, one day too late, what Jamie was saying. As for the comment about Michael Savage, he sure is right. White men (especially the younger ones) are totally emasculated.

Steve Elkin says: These kids need to spend some time in the “Homeboys turf”, at night and see how they feel then!

mike says: O my gosh, James, these brainwashed youths make conservatives look bad, i.e. “we all came from Africa”. These are your typical republican brats, they truly don’t respect the paleo-cons. Like Buchanan, Edwards, Duke, and the rest.

Joanne Dee says: The more I watch this clip, the more entertaining it becomes. I went from nausea to hysterics in the blink of an eye. My favorite line by Jamie responding to one of these idiots: “We went from free speech to free land.” Priceless. They don’t have a clue about primal “blood and soil.” Not one iota. They truly are clueless. Attention Wal-Mart shoppers: this man does not represent the Campaign for Liberty.

Good. And the Campaign for Liberty does not represent me nor liberty! Fake conservatives and fake libertarians.

Anonymous says: Did you catch what the brunette said in response to Jamie discussing how whites are indifferent toward protecting their homelands in comparison to other races? She stated, “That’s why we’re superior to the rest of them.” She is a genuine white supremacist. Why does she want to import people into the country who she believes are “inferior” to her? The answer, of course, is because she is one of those whites who loves to use nonwhites as pawns in a pathetic contest to prove who is the ultimate “antiracist” person alive. This is truly a mental pathology that must be cured. I hope that she and rest of the group will soon come around.

Bryan says: Are we surprised? Considering the twisted history that has been taught to people in the last forty years, really, are we surprised? I felt this way as a twelve year-old child but when I was about fourteen I started getting information from a lot of different sources to correct the history. Today, I don’t believe the nonsense and clearly recognize the threat against White America.

One big difference for me is that I have not watched a lot of TV nor have I done so since I was about thirteen (almost twenty-three years ago, so I miss out on the media indoctrination through music, TV and movies: and that makes a big difference let me assure you). The more your news and ideas about the world are derived from TV and movies the more you seem to fall for this nonsense.

I work in an office in a liberal city for a fortune 500 corporation. All around me daily I hear how important it is for us to celebrate diversity. I know people in the U.S. seem to think that everyone with our “Neanderthal” views are uneducated poor white trash who live in Southern neighborhoods or in Nazi Idaho. However, this is clearly not the case.

That's Not My Name says: Note how these privileged youngsters lack the mental acuity to identify the logical fallacies inherent in their “politically correct” positions. For example, one expresses the view that it does not matter if a person race-mixes.

In reality, a white reproducing with a black will yield, with overwhelming likelihood, offspring with lower IQs than those of children conceived by two whites. Clearly, the future state of humanity does matter, and human success is strongly linked to IQ. Thus, race-mixing and the associated likelihood of a lower IQ citizenry is to be avoided.

anon says: Of course they were outraged, they’ve been lied to their whole lives. These young people are probably either college students or recent grads. Every day of their lives they’ve been subjected to the most sadistic “scientific” brainwashing devised. Of course they’re not going to calmly sit there and nod in passive agreement when a prophet of truth, Jamie Kelso, unexpectedly stands before them and challenges their sacred cows. This video of Kelso just strengthens my admiration of him.

Wild Bill says: Perhaps Mr. Kelso could have opened the conversation like this: How do you people feel about the genocide of the white people in South Africa and the former Rhodesia? Does CPAC have a position on this?

Big Ugly, Wyoming says: We are truly lost—the government indoctrination in schools has had more effect than I had ever imagined.

Joanne Dee says: Courtney, We vote to make a difference. We all value our votes (at least the intelligent ones). But if the vote will never—ever—get the intended consequences, whether it is third party or main party, the vote is wasted. However, if we continue to eat away at the corrupt parties by deflecting our votes to Third Party candidates whom we agree with (are there any)? The main thing which is so elusive to us patriots, yet seldom mentioned, is that we basically have crap to vote for. We need a new government, not just another political party. We’re in a horrible dilemma with no clear way out.

Paul Hausser says: Notice how they never let Jamie finish. As soon he was ready to make the point about stuffing the USA with 1.5 billion Chinese and 300 million Mexicans they all jumped in. These kids sense that what they say is not really true but they can’t allow it to be said to their faces in such a straightforward logical way.

Reality says: Political Optimist writes: “I still believe we must work within the mainstream.” That’s like saying Christians need become porn stars to reach out to the porn industry. You’re just going to make a fool out of yourself.

_______________

My comment:

Wasn’t Srđa Trifković right in the video I embedded last week, that he was “less free in the US than in Tito’s Yugoslavia”?

“The fullest flourishing of the Western Soul ever seen”

As I said in a previous entry I just posted a few hours ago, sometimes the most interesting ideas appear in the comments section of the blogsites. For example, the following comment at Counter-Currents about the notorious cancellation of the American Renaissance conference this month reminded me the article “Why conservatives still can’t win”:

[Lincoln] Rockwell was already complaining in 1965 that conservatives were hostile to their own vanguard, while the moderate left, by contrast, always makes apologies for the far left. You have solidarity and de facto support for extremism on the left, and paranoid concern about staying “respectable” on the right.

In other words, while for Leftists “There are no enemies to the Left,” for conservatives even a centimeter to one’s Right is considered beyond the pale: the perfect losing formula for those wishing to preserve Western civilization. But even more interesting was the response to the above-quoted commenter by a fan of the Northwest Front vision (no ellipsis added):

Conservatism is a fraud; it is intellectually dishonest, a confidence game to bluff the fools; worse, in practice, it always loses.

Hitler was the last real revolutionary of our Race. He tried to do a hundred years of cultural development in ten, and a thousand years of cultural development in twenty. Above all, the NSDAP Cultural Moment [National Socialism] is a phrase that describes the last metapolitical project of our race, for the time being.

That is why it was so threatening to the status quo.

It worked, and shone so bright a light that the enemies of Mankind fled in horror, regrouped, and went on the attack against the fullest flourishing of the Western Soul ever seen.

See also the entry of this blog about rehabilitating National Socialism and Hitler that, to date, has got more than 40,000 hits (here).

Why conservatives still can’t win

by Greg Johnson

Recently I re-read William Pierce’s classic 1971 essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win.” Like Pierce, if forced to choose between liberals and conservatives, I would side with conservatives. Conservatives have the indispensable political realism necessary for the preservation of any civilization. Liberalism, I will grant, does attract the best brains, blood, and spirit of our race. But though liberal idealism and imagination may adorn the heights of our civilization, they are undermining its foundations.

If in the next national election, everybody who voted Republican dropped dead in the voting booth, the country would be finished. You can’t have a functioning society consisting of bureaucrats, academics, welfare parasites, Jews, coloreds, feminists, fruit juice drinkers, and assorted busybodies. But if every Democratic voter dropped dead, my own family would be more than decimated, but society would go on. It would definitely be more orderly and more prosperous, although it would also be drab and hideously uptight.

Aside from politics, in which I completely reject egalitarianism and multiculturalism, I am pretty much a liberal. But one cannot deny that White Nationalism today is a phenomenon of the right. If White Nationalism is to triumph, it will have to become the common sense of the whole political spectrum. But for the time being, we are rightists, and we have to make the best of it.

But although we are Rightists, we are not conservatives. Conservatives share some of our values, but they don’t share all of them, and they certainly don’t share our goals. In fact, it is hard to speak of conservatives as goal-oriented at all. Conservatives are backwards-looking or fixated on legalism, procedure, and rights, but they do not have an image of a perfected society that is the proper goal of political activity. White Nationalists, like leftists, do have such a vision.

Conservative goals, such as they are, are confined to piecemeal resistance to the implementation of the grand designs of the left. As often as not, conservatives are just trying to hold on to the leftist programs of the past.

William F. Buckley’s description of conservatism as “Standing athwart the tracks of history yelling stop” pretty much captures this mentality, as unseemly as it is for a serious-minded individual. We White Nationalists, however, want to be in the engine of history, steering it toward our goal, and cheerfully pouring on the steam when the Buckleys of the world try to get in our way.

The core of Pierce’s argument is that conservatives can’t win because they aren’t really trying. The left plays for keeps. They have an overriding goal. They have a world to win. Conservatives are just trying to hold on to the 1950s or the 1980s. Conservatives may fight ferociously from time to time, but they are always playing defense. They think the election of a Nixon or a Reagan is a great victory, then lapse into complacency, only to awaken a few years later to find that the left has been on the march the whole time.

Other things being equal, the side that fights to win will defeat the side that fights for a draw. Fortune favors the bold, those who launch offenses, not those who merely play defense.

Conservatives also make a virtual cult out of being good sports, graceful losers, and ready compromisers.

Well, conservatives still can’t win. But neither can they learn, so they continue to promote their folly to new generations. Recently, two White Nationalist publications that once showed real promise have been lost to conservatism: Occidental Dissent and The Occidental Quarterly, which I edited for two and a half years, along with its sister publication, TOQ Online, which I created and edited for a year. I have already dealt with Occidental Dissent in “White Nationalism and the Political ‘Mainstream.’” Here I wish to deal with TOQ.

On November 6, 2010, John Gardner (“Yggdrasil”), the new publisher of TOQ, published “Why The Occidental Quarterly Exists” in which he explains the aims of TOQ under his watch. This article contains sound advice to whites to become as independent as possible from the consumerist system and its values and to create mutual aid networks.

But when it comes to the political system, Gardner is still very much a conservative, a Republican even. He thinks that White Nationalists—a tiny, voiceless, despised, poorly funded, and poorly led movement—should aim at lobbying and “conditioning” Republicans to represent white interests. Gardner actually thinks that whites can vote and lobby and game ourselves out of this mess, as if our people have not been slated for slow and systematic genocide but are merely having a run of bad luck at the polls.

I think it is too early for White Nationalists to get involved in electoral politics and lobbying. We need to become a much bigger, richer, and more politically threatening group before we can make a difference in that realm. (And if we become powerful enough, we can dispense with electoral politics altogether.) But for any of that to happen, we need to invest our time, money, brains, and talent in community building and outreach. We need to win people over to our way of thinking, by packaging and delivering our message to every white group through every medium available. We need to build up our community so it has something more to offer prospective converts than ignominy and the company of the insane.

The John Gardner I knew was a race-wise, Jew-wise White Nationalist who believed in the goal of a white ethnostate. The Occidental Quarterly I knew was founded to be explicitly white and to deal explicitly with the Jewish question. But you would never know that from Gardner’s TOQ 2.0 agenda. The most he says about race is that white Americans are being demonized and discriminated against because of our “skin color.” (Which is the language of biological race deniers and minimizers.) And as for the Jewish question, all we get is this:

Effective political motivation demands an identifiable “them.” Our competing racial groups have an identifiable “them” in their stereotype of the evil and undeserving White man. We need our own identifiable “them” which is, of course, those who benefit from the current repression of Whites under the regime of “multiculturalism.” Then the trick is to make the “them” apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents. We should not name “them” explicitly. Rather, we advance policies that directly thwart the extractions and benefits “they” get from “us,” thus generating the kind of policy-oriented anger that will motivate and unify “us.”

If this is taken seriously as TOQ policy, then every back issue of the journal will have to be pulped and reprinted, with references to Jews replaced by euphemisms like “liberals” and “cultural Marxists.” Furthermore, Kevin MacDonald now seems like an odd choice for Editor. And in the end, it will never work, because the SPLC will always be around to remind people of the truth about White Nationalists who scuttle crabwise toward the mainstream, begin speaking in riddles and euphemisms, and try to reinvent themselves as conservatives.

We few who know the most important truth in the world—that organized Jewry (not “liberals,” not “cultural Marxists”) have set the white race (not “conservatives,” not “Christians,” not “Western Civilization”) on the path to extinction—have an absolute duty to get this message out and wake our people up. Because if we don’t do it, nobody else will. Those who know the truth but can’t shout it from the rooftops have the duty to support those who can spread the word.

Gardner’s claim that “the trick is to make the ‘them’ apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents” is just a version of the old idea that we can “sneak up on the Jews” and catch them napping. But the enemy has millions of lidless, unsleeping eyes. And the idea that the enemy is not already inflamed and motivated and working against us at 99% capacity is laughable.

Gardner’s “trick” is not to name “them” but to support policies that negatively impact the interests of the enemy, so they rise from their slumbers and attack us, which will then motivate us to fight back.

Where to start?

(1) Aren’t the Jews attacking us enough already? And if decades of Jewish attacks have not motivated whites to unite and fight back, then why does Gardner think that ratcheting up the Jewish pressure will produce a different result this time?

Our people have suffered enough. The role of White Nationalists should be to explain who has been attacking us, and why, and how to fight back. That is the leadership our race needs.

(2) When and how are White Nationalists going to gain enough power to credibly threaten Jewish interests? How, exactly, is White Nationalism going to grow without first talking about race or Jewish power? If we don’t say anything to set us apart from conservatives, if we don’t act any more honest than system politicians, then why would we expect any growth? Gardner’s strategy for gaining political power begins: First, gain sufficient power to threaten the interests of the enemy. It doesn’t work that way.

(3) It is a tried and true method of political agitation to present a moderate petition to an arrogant power and hope that it is denied. There is nothing wrong with using this technique from time to time, when it is appropriate. But to depend on this technique alone—because one has adopted a policy of never speaking the enemy’s name—is an abdication of leadership. White Nationalists should be the primary educators and agitators of our people. Again, if we don’t argue our case, nobody else will.

(4) What exactly is the advantage to our people of being kept in the dark about our real enemies? The mainstream right has been doing that for decades, and what has that gotten us? Richard Nixon knew the score, but he spoke the truth only in private. In public, he made a foreign-born Jew Secretary of State and created Affirmative Action. The enemy operates under no such self-imposed handicaps.

(5) Gardner’s strategy is obviously based on the experience of the Tea Party, a piously color-blind, universalistic movement promoting fiscal conservatism and constitutional government which was nevertheless viciously attacked as “racist” by the left. These attacks have prompted ever-angrier denials of “racism” but not much more. Perhaps White Nationalists can reap some benefits from this polarization, but it is not a phenomenon that we need to imitate or encourage. It is doing quite well without us. Furthermore, leftist attacks on the Tea Party might move some people in our direction, but we will not move them any further unless we stay true to our own message rather than blending in with conservatives.

Pierce was right. Conservatism can’t win. It doesn’t really conserve anything. It is so politically inept and hapless that it seems almost designed to lose. If doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, it is also a good definition of conservatism.


__________________

I read this article in Counter-Currents Publishing. The image at the middle does not appear in the original article.