by Professor R.P. Oliver

April 1987

When we consider the probable future effect of the present epidemic of immunity deficiency, commonly and improperly designated by the acronym "AIDS," we are dependent on the information given to us by experts in a highly specialized and almost recondite science. It is a reasonable assumption that the reports of independent scientists are more reliable than the official pronouncements of governmental agencies, which have too often been caught in fabricating data for political purposes, and now, in trying to minimize concern over the growing epidemic.

There is one pertinent fact which, so far as I know, has never been adduced in estimates of the probable future propagation of the virus that causes immunity deficiency.

We must keep in mind one elementary distinction, which will be known to anyone who has had an ordinary course in biology in an honest high school (if there still are some that "educators" have not destroyed). I shall, however, state it here with, I hope, no excessive over-simplification.

Bacteria are living organisms, essentially like amoebae, each consisting of a single living cell, which reproduces itself as it grows by fission, the normal form of reproduction of unicellular organisms. Life, of course, would be impossible without such organisms, of which there is a seemingly infinite variety. Bacteria are tiny, but can be seen in the field of an ordinary microscope. Comparatively few varieties are pathogenic and cause diseases, but bacteria can be killed on contact by antiseptics and, when within a living body, by specific drugs. So long as it was believed that all infectious diseases were caused by bacteria, we lived in an age of what we may call medical euphoria, since it was assumed that cleanliness and antisepsis would prevent infection.

By any reasonable definition of life, no kind of virus is a living organism. A single particle of virus, now called a virion, is a protein molecule which has the peculiar ability to multiply itself when lodged in a living cell, and it is now known that some species of bacteria, which were thought to cause diseases, would in themselves be harmless if they were not infected by the kind of virus that actually causes the disease. All kinds of virus are so extremely minute that they are invisible even under the maximum magnification possible in microscopes, and can be seen only indirectly by use of the so-called electron microscope. Incidentally, the virus that causes immunity deficiency is so much more minute than other viruses that for a long time it could not be detected by electron microscopes and the term 'prion' was suggested in the belief that it was generically different from virus.

A virus cannot be killed, because it is not alive, and consequently antiseptics and drugs cannot destroy it and there can be no prophylaxis against it, but it also cannot multiply itself when it is not lodged in a living cell. An organism's only defence against a virus is what is now called its immune system, which generates antibodies that do not 'kill' the virus, but, so to speak, imprison and expel it. Curative measures are, in practice, limited to stimulating the immune system. Coryza, commonly called a cold, is caused by a kind of virus, and recovery from the cold depends on the efficiency of the immune system in capturing and expelling the virions. It is everybody's experience that certain treatments hasten, while others impede, the work of the immune system. It is now known that some kinds of cancer, and a plausible guess that all kinds, are caused by virus, so that it is a logical inference that the statistically great increase of cancer in communities in which the drinking water is poisoned with fluorides indicates that the fluorides in some way inhibit or impair the immune system.

The existence and function of the immune system has long been known -- it was generally called the "vis medicatrix naturae" -- but only recently have we learned something about the chemistry and mechanics of its operation; and recognition of its enormous and crucial importance may be said to have initiated a revolution in therapy which is still in its very earliest stage.

The foregoing elementary outline will suffice to show the terrible potential of a virus which destroys the immune system itself, as, according to all information now available, is done by the virus of "AIDS." That is what makes it a menace unlike any which mankind has had to confront before. Although the Judaeo-Liberal fanatics who would manipulate us by denying the facts of race may have thus far concealed some highly significant information about relative susceptibility to the virus, there is no known instance of immunity to it and no reason to hope that, as has happened in all earlier epidemics, some individuals may have a genetic potential to resist an infection that is lethal to a majority of others. Therefore one can indeed see a possibility that the terrible virus could destroy all human life on earth, thus producing the 'warless world' for which "Liberals" and other sentimentalists yearn, though not in the way envisaged in their childish dreams.

Although there is still dispute, much of it tendentious, about the transfer of the virus from one organism to another, e.g., whether it is found in saliva, or exactly how it is transmitted sexually, one thing seems certain, that the virus can and will enter the body through any lesion in the epidermis, even a minute and usually unperceived scratch, and that a single virion will suffice to infect. Furthermore, it seems that the virion can be carried, for example, on a hand, and that no amount of scrubbing with soap or carbolic acid can be counted on to remove something so minute as a single molecule.

A virion cannot be removed from an hypodermic needle by any form of sterilization, and may therefore be carried by the needle when it pierces the skin. Theoretically, at least, there seems to be no reason why a mosquito that has sipped the blood of an infected person may not carry a virion into the body of the next person whose epidermis it pierces with its proboscis. And theoretically also, a virion present in food that is ingested could infect by entering the blood stream through the minute lesions in the gums that are often produced by a toothbrush.

It is with the foregoing in mind that I notice a report in "Medical World News," 24 November 1986, which makes no mention of "AIDS" and has nothing to do with that disease. The article summarizes a study by the Center for Disease Control, according to which some 20,000 persons are killed every year by hospitals in which they are infected with lethal diseases, and probably another 60,000 are killed by being infected with diseases which, while not lethal in themselves, reduce the patient's ability to resist the injury or malady with which he entered the hospital. The report further states specifically that the deaths are caused by negligence in the hospitals investigated, which in various ways (e.g., by using contaminated hypodermic needles) infect patients with diseases which can be easily controlled, if proper precautions are taken.

Now if this is true -- and I see no reason to doubt it -- I leave to your imagination an estimate of what is likely to happen when hospitals everywhere are partly or largely filled with patients who are dying of Immunity Deficiency.

The "Scientific American" for December contains an article, "The AIDS Virus," by Dr. Robert C. Gallo, one of the foremost authorities. He describes what has been learned about the way in which particles of the virus capture and use cells of the immune system, and the various theories that are based on what is now known. He confirms the observation, which I have mentioned before, that in some cases the virus attacks the brain without seeming to affect the immune system, thus remaining undetectable until it has caused dementia. He reports that the virus has already reached South Africa, where I have suggested it may become pandemic among the savages quickly enough to save the White race from the consequences of its own folly.

The deadly infection of Immunity Deficiency first appeared among the niggers of central Africa in the late 1950s, as is known from viral analysis of blood serum obtained at that time, but was first recognized when an explanation was sought for the fact that in the late 1970s the form of cancer known as Karposi's sarcoma, which had been confined to Jews (including part- Jews) and niggers, had begun to appear in White homosexuals. This, unfortunately, is the only specific mention of race in Dr. Gallo's article, and consequently some of his findings remain ambiguous.

He is certain that when a particle of the virus has reached a victim's blood, no matter how it may have been introduced, it will use the immune system itself to multiply its deadly infection (unless it for some unknown reason elects to go directly to the brain and multiply there). He thinks that whenever a large segment of population has been infected, no matter how, the epidemic will spread rapidly to the rest of the population, in one way or another.

What is most terrifying, however, is the apparent ability of the virus to adapt itself to its hosts. It appears that the virus found in a species of African monkey, "Cercopithecus aethiops" (a near relative of the "Cercopithecus sabaeus," which I guessed to be the species involved last year), is apparently not identical with the virus now found in Immunity Deficiency. One theory, supported by some good but not conclusive evidence, holds that there is but one species of the virus, which, by mutation or adaptation, appears in different guises. The virus, which is entirely harmless to the simians, assumed three distinct forms when it began work on the niggers. One of these forms, thus far found only in a relatively small district of Africa, does not produce Immunity Deficiency, a second, equally rare, does but apparently with less virulence, while the third form became endemic in the niggers of all central Africa and eventually spread from them to the rest of the world, first appearing among White men only in homosexuals, who must have acquired it from an even more disgusting perversity that made them seek intercourse with niggers. In Africa it affects both homosexual and heterosexual niggers of both sexes, thus entitling it to praise from "Liberals" for not being so wicked as to discriminate. In America, as Dr. Gallo emphasizes for the comfort of the perverts, the infection is now found in heterosexuals of both sexes. What the Judaeo-"Liberal" censorship prevents him from telling us is the race of those heterosexuals. If they are almost all niggers (or niggers and Jews), that is only what we should expect and should occasion no alarm, except perhaps to White men and women so depraved that they will copulate with Blacks. If there is a considerable infection among Whites, it was probably transmitted to women of our race by males who observe the rule attributed to the celebrated Tallulah Bankhead, "Male sex? Female sex? What do I care, so long as it is sex?" And it seems that women thus infected may in turn infect men by normal sexual intercourse, although I am not sure this has been proved beyond question.

Now if, as perverts and "Liberals" piously hope and as Dr. Gallo apprehends, the infection becomes epidemic among normal men and women of our race, it is conceivable that the virus has adapted itself to them. And we must wonder whether the particles of virus that elect to go directly to the brain are identical with the more common particles that attack the immune system, or do they represent some further mutation?

I do not mean to frighten you (or encourage you, if you see in the growing pandemic our only hope for racial survival), but if a virus has so developed itself that it made its way from African monkeys to normal Aryans by showing a physiological adaptability to its victims as great the Jews' well-known social adaptability, the possibility of further mutation must be taken into account in any projection of the future.

The prospect is indeed terrifying, but we may find some encouragement in the lesson that the fearful virus is teaching our contemporaries. I quote from Dr. Gallo's conclusion, italicizing one sentence and correcting one misspelling: "In the past two decades one of the fondest boasts of medical science has been the conquest of infectious diseases... The advent of retroviruses with the capacity to cause extraordinarily complex and devastating disease has exposed that claim for what it was: hubris. "Nature is never truly conquered"... Perhaps conquest is the wrong metaphor to describe our relation to nature, which not only surrounds but in the deepest sense also constitutes our being."

This tardy realization of man's place in the universe must lead all our contemporaries who are capable of cogitation to the perception that attempts to repeal nature and make individuals and even races equal by sloshing them with holy water or dosing them with "democratic" piffle are simply hubris, an overwhelming defiance of nature. And miscegenation, which produces anthropoid hybrids, is arrant hubris. As the profound psychopathology of Greek tragedy taught men long ago, "hubris" is consequent to "ate," tragic blindness to reality, and inevitably the precursor of inescapable "nemesis."