Race and Literature: Why is it Always Liberal?

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, January 30, 2012

Slider
How racial consciousness is destroyed.

I went through high school without reading Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. I had always heard it was a great, anti-racist classic, so I recently picked it up.

It is a great novel. It convincingly brings to life the small-town South, childhood, and the complexity of human relations. Its characters and dialogue are charming, its plot is lively, and it brilliantly weaves together youthful innocence and serious adult themes.

To Kill a Mockingbird is also racial propaganda and this, of course, accounts for much of its success. More than 30 million copies are in print, and a 1999 poll in Library Journal voted it nothing less than the “Best Novel of the Century.” It is the most widely read non-textbook by Americans in grades 9 through 12. No other book has so successfully ridden the wave of contemporary racial orthodoxy, which Harper Lee captured with uncanny prescience in a manuscript she completed in the summer of 1959.

Readers will recall that the novel is set in the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama, during the depression, and is narrated by a white girl of about nine named Scout. There are a number of subplots, but the central event is the trial of Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a white woman, Mayella Ewell. Atticus Finch, who is Scout’s father and a lawyer, puts on a brilliant defense that makes it clear Mayella sought Tom’s attentions, which he prudently tried to avoid. Mayella was found black and blue after what took place, not because Tom had overpowered her but because her father caught her showing interest in a “nigger” and beat her bloody. Nevertheless, the all-white jury dares not tarnish the image of pristine, Southern white womanhood, and finds Tom guilty of rape.

Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch, defending Tom Robinson.

This is a perfect book for white liberals, who love to read about the “racism” of other whites, and to preen themselves on their superiority to such low-class sentiments. To Kill a Mockingbird offers endless frissons of superiority, not only because the worst characters are white trash, to whom all readers can feel immensely superior, but because the story catches even respectable whites in racial hypocrisies and vanities. There is no greater darling to the reading public than a Southern author—and Harper Lee is authentically Southern—who unmasks the prejudices of fellow Southerners.

Some examples:

After the trial, the blacks of Maycomb grumble about the guilty verdict, and one respectable white lady, Mrs. Merriweather, gets tired of it:

I tell you there’s nothing more distracting than a sulky darky. Their mouths go down to here. Just ruins your day to have one of ‘em in the kitchen. You know what I said to my Sophy? I said “Sophy,” I said, “you simply are not being a Christian today. Jesus Christ never went around grumbling and complaining,” and you know, it did her good. . . . I tell you, you never ought to let an opportunity go by to witness for the Lord.

The leading ladies of Maycomb are trying to raise money to support the missionary work of a certain J. Grimes Everett, who ministers to the fictional but no doubt African Mrunas. In a passage Hillary Clinton, author of It Takes a Village, would love, nine-year-old Scout recounts what she learned about the Mrunas from listening to the grownups:

They had so little sense of family that the whole tribe was one big family. A child had as many fathers as there were men in the community, and as many mothers as there were women. J. Grimes Everett was dong his utmost to change this state of affairs, and desperately needed our prayers.

More about the Mrunas:

Mrs. Merriweather’s large brown eyes always filled with tears when she considered the oppressed. “Living in that jungle with nobody but J. Grimes Everett,” she said. “Not a white person’ll go near ‘em but that saintly J. Grimes Everett.”

Mrs. Merriweather weeps for the far off oppressed but will not put up with a “sulky darky.”

The school teacher Miss Gates is no different. She gives her class a rousing talk on the evils of Adolph Hitler and his treatment of the Jews. (This would have been a real achievement for a rural schoolteacher during the Depression. At that time, most Americans were more interested in how Hitler was putting Germany back to work than in what he thought about Jews, but Miss Lee was writing after the war, so could have her character give the Nazis a good thumping.) But like Mrs. Merriweather, Miss Gates saves her sympathy for the far away. Scout tells her father Atticus about what she overheard Miss Gates saying about blacks:

I heard her say it’s time somebody taught ‘em a lesson, they were gettin’ way above themselves, an’ the next thing they think they can do is marry us. How can you hate Hitler so bad an’ then turn around and be ugly about folks right at home—

The “respectable” people are thus almost worse than white lout Bob Ewell who beat up his own daughter, because “respectable” people should know better. Ewell is a snarling, ignorant cur who lives in a pigsty and ends up trying to kill Atticus Finch’s children because Finch made a fool of him on the witness stand. There could hardly be a more despicable character, and just to make sure we get the message, when he gives his full name in court, it is Robert E. Lee Ewell.

All the black characters, on the other hand, are wise, respectful, and—above all—long suffering. With one unexplained exception, there is not a false note out of a single one of them. The unexplained exception is “Lula” who plays no other role in the story than to object when Atticus Finch’s black maid brings his children to the black church one Sunday. “You ain’t got no right bringin’ white chillun here,” she says. “They got their church, we got our’n.”

The white children are ashamed and want to go home, but a black man steps forward to reassure them. “Don’t pay no ‘ttention to Lula,” he says. “She’s a troublemaker from way back, got fancy ideas an’ haughty ways—we’re mighty glad to have you all.” The children stay and are warmly received. Aside from Lula, every black is forgiving and generous, and endures hardship with “Biblical patience.” Only the most swinish white could resist such noble people. To read To Kill a Mockingbird—and it has been translated into 40 languages—is to get a first-class lesson in liberal fantasy.

Many people reportedly claim they decided to become lawyers because of Atticus Finch’s courage in defending an innocent black man caught up in the viciousness of Deep South racism. No doubt many others have been inspired to other acts of racial liberalism.

Political Power

To Kill a Mockingbird is thus a fine example of the political power of fiction, and virtually all the genuinely great fiction, drama, and movie-making that has a racial message is sharply leftist. Starting with Uncle Tom’s Cabin and continuing through Israel Zangwill’s The Melting Pot, right up to South Pacific and virtually every movie made today, the message is always one of the equivalence of races and the brotherhood of man. When race realists try to think of a major novel with a healthy racial message, they usually get no further than Thomas Dixon’s The Clansman—and that isn’t even a good novel. From Double Eagle to Red Flag, by General Pyoter Krassnoff and published in English in 1926, is a powerful, reactionary novel, but its message is not racial so much as anti-Bolshevik and anti-Semitic. 

Why are there no great race-realist novels? Many fine novelists had sensible views of race. Jack London and Joseph Conrad clearly had no illusions about race. Anthony Trollope and Alexander Dumas drop an occasional line that shows they shared the racial views of their time. In fact, university literature departments would run out of things to do if they stopped writing papers about “race, class, and gender” in books written before the current reign of terror. But no one has written a great novel that, even in passing, underlines the importance of white consciousness.

Partly, this is because racial thinking was transformed in the space of just a few decades, and Trollope and Dumas probably never sensed a threat to their way of life. Until the second half of the 20th century, non-whites were not a demographic threat and most whites never thought about them. Europeans traditionally felt much more strongly about nation than about race (see following article).

At the same time, fantasy and good feeling are always much more appealing than reality, and fiction is, after all, fantasy. It is easier and more uplifting to write happy-ending stories about the redemption of small-minded white people than it is to warn of the consequences of liberal sentimentalism.

Stories of magnanimity, of renunciation of privilege, of kindness to the weak are much more heart-warming than stories about defending what belongs to you. This is especially true when you are defending what is yours against people who are weaker than you. There was no heroism in putting down Denmark Vesey’s 1822 slave rebellion or in President Eisenhower’s expulsion of 1.3 million illegal-immigrant Mexicans in “Operation Wetback” in 1953 to ‘54. These actions were necessary, but hardly the stuff of inspiring novels.

Our hearts do stir at the story of the Spartans at Thermopylae, the Texans at the Alamo, and the British at Roark’s Drift, but those were battles against overwhelming odds. That is not how the racial struggle is being fought.

If Mexicans or Muslims attempted an armed invasion, whites would fight. As it is, dispossession is gradual, and Mexicans and Muslims hope to enjoy all the benefits of armed invasion without paying the costs. The real enemies are not armies of non-whites but the traitors of our own race who welcome and encourage unarmed invasion.

There is material here for literature. It would be possible to write a novel about a prominent white Democratic politician, for example, who gradually wakes up to reality. This admittedly unlikely process would be full of dramatic possibilities, and once his eyes were open, how would a prominent ex-liberal resolve incompatible loyalties? How would he explain himself to colleagues and family? Would he dare shift his politics? A novel of this kind could put the protagonist in the familiar hero’s role of a single courageous man fighting power and corruption. The main antagonists could also be white, and therefore worthy and interesting opponents.

What other themes might a racial novel raise? Probably only a great novelist could think of the best and the most subtle, but an obvious approach is to start with multi-racial degeneracy. The white hero combats this degeneracy—both psychologically and physically—and leads his people into a more promising future.

This is roughly the pattern of William Pierce’s novels or Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet. Mister by Alex Kurtagic and White Apocalypse by Kyle Bristow also deliver a racial message as fiction. The trouble with these books is that, whatever their novelistic merits—and some are well crafted—they are political tracts that take the form of fiction. Only people who are racially aware will read these books, whereas we need novels that are so good everyone will want to read them. The racial message would be subtle and therefore more effective. Although I have not read it, others tell me that Tom Wolf’s Bonfire of the Vanities achieves something of this effect.

Our real need is for great novelists who have a racial consciousness and a racial message, not racial activists who write novels. Unfortunately, it is harder to write a great racial novel than a great anti-racist novel. Reconciliation and forgiveness, harmony and togetherness—these are the obvious resolutions to dramatic tension. Anti-racist novels can have happy endings, even though they are nothing more than poisonous fairy tales. The happy ending for a racial novel is more like tragedy: the recognition that some interests cannot be reconciled, that some forms of togetherness are fatal. People do not read novels because they want lessons in reality; they read them to escape reality.

Until the great talent arises that can solve these problems, the best antidote to To Kill a Mocking Bird may be great literature from the recent past. Read Anthony Trollope, George Elliot, Wilkie Collins, Joseph Conrad, Alexandre Dumas, Leo Tolstoy, or even Sinclair Lewis, Edith Wharton, or Theodore Dreiser, and try to imagine their characters “celebrating diversity.” These authors had a genius for capturing the human condition—as does Harper Lee—and the human condition is often mediocre. But they wrote of societies that had cultural and racial coherence, in which even the most insignificant character is part of a common heritage and destiny. That common destiny is impossible in a multi-racial society.

One of the most charming tales in the English language is Anne of Green Gables, by L. M. Montgomery, published in 1908. It is still a great favorite, and not just among young girls. Montgomery brought to life an idyllic yet entirely believable world, set in her native Prince Edward Island. It is a coherent, healthy world, inhabited only by white people. Read Anne of Green Gables and try to imagine it with a population of blacks, Mexicans, and Muslims. It is impossible for a racially conscious white to read Anne without mourning the loss of her world, and her story must exert a primal, racial tug of nostalgia on even hardened multi-culturalists.

But to return to Harper Lee, she turned out to be a one-trick pony. To Kill a Mockingbird was her first book, and she never published another. Of course, if your first book wins a Pulitzer Prize and goes on to be voted the best novel of the century, one trick may be enough.

Harper Lee with George W. Bush

Miss Lee has reaped honor after honor over her long life. In 2007, George W. Bush awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor the government can give a civilian. Just the year before, Miss Lee received an honorary doctorate from Notre Dame. All the students got copies of To Kill a Mockingbird, which they waved in admiration as they gave her a standing ovation. We can be sure that if her book had a healthy racial message—or no racial message at all—her life would have been very different.

She unquestionably wrote a great novel but, alas, one for the other side.

Narrow Loyalties: Nation vs. Race

In 1912, Robert Scott reached the South Pole, but met terrible weather on the trip back. Eventually he realized that he and his men were going to die. He wrote a number of farewell letters that were found on his body by another team of explorers eight months later.

Face to face with death, Scott was vividly conscious of representing a group larger than himself, but it was his nation—really, his ethnic group—not his race. As he wrote to J. M. Barrie, his good friend and the author of Peter Pan, “We are pegging out in a very comfortless spot. . . . We are showing that Englishmen can still die with a bold spirit, fighting it out to the end.”

To his friend, Edgar Speyer, one of the organizers of the trip to the pole, he wrote this:

I fear we must go and that it leaves the Expedition in a bad muddle. But we have been to the Pole and we shall die like gentlemen. I regret only for the women we leave behind.

. . . If this diary is found it will show how we stuck by dying companions and fought the thing out well to the end. I think this will show that the Spirit of pluck and power to endure has not passed out of our race. . . .

By “race,” Scott meant the English “race.”

He also wrote to Vice-Admiral Sir Francis Charles Bridgeman: “[W]e are setting a good example to our countrymen, if not by getting into a tight place, by facing it like men when we were there.”

Scott at the South Pole: determined to die like an English gentleman.

Scott was determined to die like an Englishman and a gentleman, not like a white man. He saw himself as a representative of a people, however, and it is easy to imagine him expressing a broader loyalty. If any of today’s Brits were facing death in the Antarctic, would they think of themselves as Englishmen, or believe it their duty to be a model of “the Spirit of pluck and power to endure”? Would a mixed band of British Pakis and West Indians have anything like the same sense of duty?

Wren’s Beau Geste, written in 1924 and based on his experiences in the French Foreign Legion, is steeped in the same sense of national loyalty. There is a scene in the early pages that defines the Englishman as the true standard of virtue. After several years of separation, George Lawrence of the Nigerian Civil Service happens upon an old French friend, Major Henri de Beaujolais.

For de Beaujolais, Lawrence had a great respect and liking as a French soldier of the finest type, keen as mustard, hard as nails, a thorough sportsman, and a gentleman according to the exacting English standard. Frequently he paid him the remarkable English compliment, “One would hardly take you for a Frenchman, Jolly, you might almost be English,” a bouquet which de Beaujolais received with less concern by reason of the fact that his mother had been a Devonshire Cary.

Why, of course de Beaujolais has fine qualities; his mother was English!

Beau Geste is a manly adventure of heroism and high demeanor, about three English brothers who unfailingly do their duty and defend their honor. Most of the action takes place in North Africa, where the brothers have been sent by the Legion. They meet all manner of Europeans, but the Germans are louts, the Italians and Portuguese are thieving cutthroats, the Americans are stout but simple, and though the French produce an occasional man of parts, they never get it quite right.

There are many Arabs in the story, but Wren takes no more individual notice of them than he does of horses or camels. In other words, he takes race for granted; for Wren, only white men matter, and Europeans measure themselves only against each other.

Americans have long had a less national and more broadly racial sense of identity. This is because European quarrels were far away, and Americans married across national lines and lost their European identities. But most important, they lived with blacks and American Indians. Unlike Europeans who rarely saw a non-white, Americans knew that they might be of British or German or Dutch stock, but what united them was that they were white.

Just one year after Scott died in the Antarctic, Jack London wrote The Mutiny of the Elsinore. He wrote of a pan-European racial consciousness that might at first have seemed strange to Scott or Wren, but it was one they would surely have understood.

Jack London in his office.

The Elsinore, one of the last commercial sailing ships, is on a passage around Cape Horn when its crew of mongrels and off-whites mutinies. The narrator, who has come on board as a passenger, joins the officers in holding off the mutiny, and falls in love with the captain’s daughter.

Near the end of the book, he is barricaded on the poop deck with his sweetheart and the remaining men. The mutineers offer not to hurt them if they surrender, but threaten the worst if they hold out:

[A]cross my brain flashed a vision of all I had ever read and heard of the siege of the Legations at Peking, and of the plans of the white men for their womenkind in the event of the yellow hordes breaking through the last lines of defense. . . .

And I knew anger. Not ordinary anger, but cold anger. And I caught a vision of the high place in which we had sat and ruled down the ages in all lands, on all seas. I saw my kind, our women with us, in forlorn hopes and lost endeavours, pent in hill fortresses, rotted in jungle fastnesses, cut down to the last one on the decks of rocking ships. And always, our women with us, had we ruled the beasts. We might die, our women with us; but, living, we had ruled. It was a royal vision I glimpsed. . . . It was the sacred trust of the seed, the bequest of duty handed down from all ancestors.

And I flamed more coldly. It was not red-brute anger. It was intellectual. It was based on concept and history; it was the philosophy of action of the strong and the pride of the strong in their own strength. Now at last I knew Nietzsche. I knew the rightness of the books, the relation of high thinking to high conduct . . . on the poop of a coal-carrier in the year nineteen-thirteen, my woman beside me, my ancestors behind me, my slant-eyed servitors under me, the beasts beneath me and beneath the heel of me. God! I felt kingly. I knew at last the meaning of kingship.

Despite the bravado of this passage, London was aware of the precariousness of the white man’s position. Just a few pages earlier, he writes:

Yes, I am a perishing blond, and a man, and I sit in the high place and bend the stupid ones to my will; and I am a lover, loving a royal woman of my own perishing breed, and together we occupy, and shall occupy, the high place of government and command until our kind perish from the earth.

London had a racial consciousness, but he did not write books in order to spread it. Most of The Mutiny of the Elsinore is good, seafaring yarn, and the racial message is so small a part of the story that probably no one noticed when the 1937 movie version left it out. What is more, To Kill a Mocking Bird is a much better novel than Mutiny. London is more convincing when he puts thoughts into the minds of dogs than when he puts words in the mouths of people.

The great racialist novel is yet to be written.

Correction: An earlier version of this article mistakenly referred to Leo Tolstoy as Nicolai Tolstoy.

Topics: , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    The Camp of the Saints by Jean Respail is my favorite novel with a White racialist theme.

  • Anonymous

    I would love to write a book like that.

    But this has already been done, right?  Albeit not in the most sensible manner in “The Turner Diaries” and “Hunter”.

    • Anonymous

      Read ‘Hold Back This Day’ by Ward Kendall the other day.  As a book of dystopian fiction it was rather enjoyable.

  • Anonymous

    Spot on, as always, Mr. Taylor but I would expand on one point. You correctly mention how the condemnation of “racism” is attractive for liberals because it allows them to put themselves on a higher moral plane than the knuckle-dragging, open-mouthed breathers who dare to indulge in truth-telling on the subject of race.  We all know this to be true but there is another common, almost universal characteristic of these white liberal types that Harper Lee very much shares – a near total life-long voluntary physical separation from the very “mistreated” people they claim to champion. Someone can correct me here if I’m off (too lazy to check it), but Harper Lee comes from a rather privileged background – Oxford, private women’s university. This is in the 1940′s, when the sons and daughters of working people were not exactly filling up lecture halls and dormitories. Her father was a state senator in Alabama. Her best childhood friend was Truman Capote for Christ’s sake…… For the last 50 years, it’s been honorary degrees, literary awards, Presidential citations, a Manhattan apartment and praise from Oprah. And now we all know her as the oracle of truth when it comes to credible sources regarding the plight of the downtrodden and abused blacks of the American South…….. Only in America.

    • Anonymous

      True enough, but hypocrisy stirs less outrage in me than in most.  I’ll take a hypocrite who fails to live up to his own sound ideas, especially if he is effective at implementing or at least persuading others to them, over a sincere and dedicated foe.
      -formerly known as “Irish”

  • Bardon Kaldian

    I have some problems with Mr.Taylor’s presentation of the topic. But, just one caveat before- I stopped reading novels when I was ca. 32-35 yrs old (until then, I’ve read most of the “greats” & not-so-greats). This is a pattern discernible in men/males – http://goo.gl/G9sp6  Now I read mostly non-fiction. 

    Now:

    + “To Kill a Mockingbird” is a readable didactic novel. Nothing great about it. Harold Bloom, good critic- though I disagree with him on some authors & works- considers it a period piece, a 20th century “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. I’d say that similar POW is presented in a 1990s TV series “I’ll Fly Away”

    + most great literature dealing with racial issues is “race-realist”, but the general humanist intention of authors tends to leave a fuzzy impression, a complexity one can not derive simple solutions from. For instance, a few great works come to my mind:
    William Faulkner: Light in August; The Bear (from “Go Down, Moses”)
    Philip Roth: The Human Stain
    William Styron: The Confessions of Nat Turner
    J.M. Coetzee: Disgrace – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_%28novel%29

    These are serious & permanent aesthetic accomplishments.

    + I guess what Mr. Taylor writes about are readable, popular novels- not great literature. Well, AFAIK, Tom Wolfe’s “Bonfire of the Vanities” (mentioned in the text) is a truly race- realist novel.
    When I think of a more radical, even racist novel, Richard Wright’s “Native Son” & Bigger Thomas come to my mind. It could have been written by a White racist, notwithstanding author’s subtleties.

    Harper Lee’s book is a piece of propaganda I’m just curious how it’s possible that it still works.

    • http://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX Jared Taylor

      I think Native Son could *never* have been written by a race realist. The book reeks with negro self pity and resentment against white privilege. In its own, much more hard-bitten way, its message is the same as that of To Kill a Mockingbird: blacks and whites are the same, and any distinctions are invidious and unjust.

      • Bardon Kaldian

        This was, no doubt, Wright’s intention. But, at the level of  emotional-irrational response, Bigger Thomas-the main character- slaps the reader with animalistic brutality. Wright’s sermon would be that, given other social circumstances (fair deal, decent housing, no prejudices, ..) Bigger could have been a decent & productive human being. This is what Wright’s tried to convey, anyway. Just- no reader, and I think even Wright, could hardly believe in this thesis.
        For me- and for other numerous readers(not all, I know)- it’s a delusion. Bigger is jungle embodied, and he would act & react violently (and unpredictably) in any strained circumstance.

        I read a book long time ago, and the result was mixed: empathy for Blacks’ low status & their fear of greater, White society, combined with uneasiness, better- repugnance for Bigger’s bestial brutality & combination of fear, lust and aggression that no social measures could- IMO, in the time of reading- ameliorate.

  • Anonymous

    Read Anthony Trollope, George Elliot, Wilkie Collins, Joseph Conrad, Alexandre Dumas, Nicolai Tolstoy, or even Sinclair Lewis, Edith Wharton, or Theodore Dreiser, and try to imagine their characters “celebrating diversity.”                          

    Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, January 30, 2012                     
                                                                                       One of Sinclair Lewis’ last novels was “Kingsblood Royal.” It is about a combat veteran who served as an Army officer during the Second World War. He returns to a mid western city, and has a good future. He has a good job at a bank, a beautiful wife, membership in a country club, you know, the whole bit. Then he discovers that a distant ancestor was black. As this discovery spreads he loses everything.     

    • Bardon Kaldian

      Alexandre Dumas was a part-Negro-, and Nicolai Tolstoy didn’t exist, just Lev/Leo Tolstoy & Alexei Tolstoy (s Soviet writer, “red count”) .

      I guess Mr. Taylor would like popular ideological novel along racialist lines. No great work, no nuances & confusing subtleties …just pontificating to the clueless.

      In this case, I’d recommend some brutal Jack London’s fiction, like short story “An Unparalleled Invasion” (the entire Chinese population is wiped out by bacteriological warfare).
      There are authors who, one way of another, exalt the White race- the authors with a streak of the primitive in them (Jack London, David Herbert Lawrence, Rudyard Kipling, ..); also, some are haughty & condescending towards colored peoples (Joseph Conrad, William Faulkner- with qualifications, ..).

      I’d say that the realist option is a journalist novel (Tom Wolfe, Norman Mailer,.–), bevcause high modernist & post-modernist fiction virtually no one reads anymore. Also, TV & movies are much more powerful- 2-3 episodes in the TV series “The Wire”, with Prez teaching in an all- Black high school in Baltimore, are even more extreme in the presentation of harsh realities than well-known Christopher Jackson’s essay/article.

      • Anonymous

        In this case, I’d recommend some brutal Jack London’s fiction, like short story “An Unparalleled Invasion” (the entire Chinese population is wiped out by bacteriological warfare).               
        - Bardon Kaldian                             
                                                          
        ———–                           
                                                                                                                    
        I hope that is not an agreeable fantasy for you.                             
                                                 

      • http://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX Jared Taylor

        To be sure: Leo Tolstoy, not Nicolai Tolstoy. My mistake.

  • Anonymous

    Those who have the talent to be great writers are likely to be affluent enough not to be threatened by black crime. Nevertheless, some were poor before they became successful. A good novel would be about the struggles of a white working class family living in a black neighborhood, and unable to leave for economic reasons. 
     
    To be convincing there would need to be decent blacks. 
     
    Nevertheless, an accurate portrayal of what many blacks are like when blacks are in the majority would propagate truths many whites seem genuinely unaware of, or would rather not think about. 

    • Anonymous

      “Nevertheless, an accurate portrayal of what many blacks are like when
      blacks are in the majority would propagate truths many whites seem
      genuinely unaware of, or would rather not think about.”

      Unfortunately, no publisher would print a book like that.  Or they would be censored for “hate speech”.

      “Truth is treason in the empire of lies” -George Orwell.

      • Anonymous

        The truth cannot denied forever, especially when most people are aware of what the truth is. 

        • Pandemonium

          Agree that the truth “will out”, but the truth can certainly be stifled as it is being done today. When all of the information levers are being controlled to the extent that they are in the West today, the truth has such a tiny voice that few hear it. 

      • Anonymous

        Why was this edited?  I don’t recall writing anything unsavory.

      • Anonymous

        But if you made it science-fiction or fantasy, and gave them a different name, then they would.

  • Bardon Kaldian

    Well-  I’d recommend “Native Son”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Son ,  a truly good novel- unlike Harper Lee’s pontificating tractate, for an obligatory reading about race. Maybe it’s dated re social realities- as is Lee’s novel- but I’m curious how liberals living in la la land would react to Bigger Thomas’ presence “in their skulls”.

  • Anonymous

    Great literature shapes public opinion. It also must reflect it in order to be successful when it is first published. A novel like “To Kill a Mockingbird” would have been marginally successful during the Great Depression. From the end of Reconstruction in 1876 to the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 I doubt there would have been much of a market for it.
     
    For two reasons the Second World War made the civil rights movement and the popularity of “To Kill a Mockingbird” possible. First, blacks participated in the war to a greater extent than in previous wars. One can argue that they performed less well than whites. Such arguments were presented during the debates over whether to integrate the military. Nevertheless, they did their part. 
     
    Second, the racial theories of the Nazis and the Holocaust discredited those who argued that racial differences are innate.  Fewer Americans wanted to believe that after the War. 
     
    It has been nearly two generations since the civil rights legislation of the 1960s was passed. There is growing evidence that racial differences are innate. In this regard crime reports and test scores are being substantiated by DNA research. It is becoming more difficult to argue that blacks are unoffensive victims of irrational color prejudice. I doubt that a book like “To Kill a Mockingbird” would be as successful now as when it was  published in 1960. 

  • Bardon Kaldian

    I just checked- Harper Lee’s novel is not among 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century, understandably so. BUT- it comes fifth in the parallel list totted up by Average American readers, along with Ayn Rand & similar stuff.

    http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/

    So, this time one can not blame the “elites”- left of right. It’s a common reader that has elevated such mediocre ideological fairy tale.

    As for relatively newer- last 15 or so yrs-novels,  here are not so bad examples:
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/08/tom-wolfes-back-to-blood.html
    http://www.vdare.com/articles/unequal-justice-duke-lacrosse-team-vs-three-minority-football-heroes
    http://www.vdare.com/articles/unrealism-and-race-a-failure-of-georgewill

  • Anonymous

    Well, an author can’t just write stuff everybody knows.

    • Bardon Kaldian

      Hahahhahahh…

  • Anonymous

    It is quite rare that I find myself in deep disagreement with Mr. Taylor, but I find myself so fundamentally opposed to the literary judgements of this article that I feel I absolutely must contradict his entire argument. I hope that my counter-argument is appealing to a man with Jared’s intellectual bent.

    I agree that most racial-themed literature is liberal, that is an obvious fact, but I can never accept his claims of greatness for it. The three merits Jared identifies in this type of literature, a depiction of pure good versus pure evil; the absorbing quality of its representation of societal minutiae; and the element of fantasy, are to my mind the antithesis of great literature. 

    Like all great art, great literature aims at truth and beauty, and makes them one, because in truth, they are one i.e. the greatest literature is tragedy because what is more human is more beautiful, and those things or the subjects of tragedy. This just my opinion, and I know it’s not a very original opinion, but it has an obvious philosophical consistency behind it, whereas Jared’s formulation of values can only spring from uncritical feeling-which, not coincidentally, is the source of much liberalism, or at least, its endurance. 

    So, if literature is to deal with societal issues, instead of good versus evil, is it not better for a literary hero to very earnestly pursue the Good, as the greater society would see it, but to be thwarted, and not by evil, but because he was gravely mistaken? That is the shock of tragedy, ameliorated only by the powerful grief of the hero, that reminds us of the sole reason of our worth. If one is to argue that society is x, or that such and such part of it is x, which may be good or bad, then isn’t a quantitative, non-fictional analysis the only way to go? The writer of fiction can make his characters behave in any way he wants, but if it contradicts quantitative facts, then what is it but a cheap manipulation? 

    Whereas the Disney-esqe good versus evil worldview results from an intellectual laziness, the other two-literature as fantasy, or as so many slices of life-are in some ways even worse. These two are generally the creation of those who are too lazy to form any sort of idea about the real world at all. And they are enjoyed by the same sorts of readers. Both are in their ways, attempts to escape a deeper understanding of reality. I know that they both have their place, especially in epics, but I submit to you that an idea-driven novel, not clouded by minutiae, and grounded in reality, if not averageness, is the best way to truth and beauty. In my view, if a novel tries to make you think something by making you feel, it is propaganda; if it tries to make you feel something by making you think, it is a honest work of art (I just thought of that line; I think I’m going to have use it again).  

    One last thing: Did To Kill A Mocking Bird really make a difference? I suppose it depends on how one defines a difference-maker, is it only those who contribute to forming  a new word, which leads to large minority of thoughtful converts, or do the thoughtful minority, who guide the passive masses down the river toward x-destiney, also count as difference-makers themselves? I have a hard time believing that such a ham-fisted novel could be much more than one of so many interchangeable tools to be used by what was by that time already a large thoughtful minority. 

    • Bardon Kaldian

      I would put it succinctly (I suppose):

      * great novels & stories that deal, even tangentially, with race issues or race-sensibility (Melville (Benito Cereno), Twain (Pudd’nhead Wilson), Conrad (The Heart of Darkness), Faulkner (Light in August; Absalom, Absalom !), Lawrence (Women in Love, Plumed Serpent), Baldwin (Another Country), Ellison (Invisible Man), Roth (The Human Stain),..) – simply do not convey a “message”. They are complex works leaving a reader simultaneously wiser & more confused- more, their crucial themes are more psychological & spiritual than social, let alone sociological. In short- this is true art, but not very influential in helping shape public opinion.

      * more, immeasurably more influential are what Orwell termed “good bad books”- readable simple novels & stories with easily discernible message (Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird”, fictions of Jack London, ..). Why “liberal” outlook dominates in race- related novels- simple, ideological novels ? The answer is an easy one: Blacks were perceived as victims of inhuman oppression & there was no public consciousness of Black on White racial violence. Blacks were sort of universal Uncle Toms, harmless, loyal to their former owners…in sum- the image of Blacks in wider White culture was of a non-threatening race. Also, Harper Lee’s novel would be rejected had the “heroine” had sex, willingly, with the accused Black (Robinson)- he even should not have raped her.

      * I guess Mr. Taylor would like to see realist fiction, readable & popular, depicting dominant traits of race relations NOW, and not idealized stories of yore. What truths on race-relations a readable, not experimental & post-modernist novel could convey: high rate of Black on White crime, no-go Black slums, collapse of Black families, thug subculture, media promotion of miscegenation (mostly BM/WW), Black racism, White flight, forced race integration & brainwashing, concocted Black history, collapse of education & affirmative action & Black middle class…

      This would be real, and recognizable as real- unlike Harper Lee’s fairy tale.

    • http://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX Jared Taylor

      I do not think great literature has to be literally true.  There have never been real people who acted as Rome and Juliet do in the play. And much as we may see the danger in the race-unconscious mentality that Harper Lee promotes, I have no doubt that she was writing in the name of the truth as she saw it. 

      The reasoning in this post would imply that no novel that violates racial truths as we see them can be a good novel. By that standard, any novel based on a sincerely held but mistaken assumption cannot be good. This would mean that if Christianity is the true religion, no novel that rejects Christianity can be great (and vice verse). This view is too restrictive.

      As for the impact of To Kill a Mockingbird, I think it has been enormous. Its version of good and evil has slid convincingly down millions of young white gullets. If people claim to have become lawyers because of the book, I’m sure many have also resolved to be good racial liberals because of it, too.

      • Anonymous

        There are truths of the human heart attached to every idea that has ever entered the world, and I would allow that a good novel could argue for any of them. I do have a pretty restrictive view of the proper role of literature, but what I was trying to say is that it concerns how it should say something, never what it should say.

      • Bardon Kaldian

        Situation with novels is complex. IMO:

        1. only “good bad books”- not great works- influence the society profoundly. In the US, Beecher Stowe and Harper Lee and Upton Sinclair (The Jungle), in Russia Chernyshevsky’s “What is to be done ?”, …Essentially, what all these books have in common is a representation of reality suggestive to change- something should be done to make the world a better, more just place to live in. No dark vision of human condition can do this. Orwell, Koestler, even Solzhenitsyn- they all lead to paralysis of will.
        I think no anti-fascist, or cold-war, or anti-communist novel had had any impact at all- re strong mobilization of readers.

        2. only when a situation is clear-cut & goes with the general culture trends- only then a book can have some impact. For instance, New Agey rubbish like “The Secret” was simple in its message, offered an instant hope & success, and was in tune with general trend of magical thinking, irrationality & New Age that has been invading modern Western mind for ca. 4 decades. So it came in the right time & the right place- just like TKAM.
        An “Anti-Secret” that would present human nature as essentially flawed , destiny as crushing & merciless, and human condition as hopeless, with heroism the only thing that makes life worthy- wouldn’t even be mentioned. Just,  Homer’s “The Iliad” is such a book. Time and place, I said.

        3. evidently, race-realist novels cannot be “inspiring”. They won’t influence anyone to make a career choice. But- they can be sobering, if not inspiring. And they have one big thing working for them, and another against them. For them is reality of everyday life. Against is the hypnotic media delusion . Which will prevail, depends on maturity of White people.

      • Anonymous

        That impact only lasts until one sees large numbers of blacks up close, and has to interact with them on terms of approximate equality. A lot of times it only takes one violent black criminal to change one’s attitude. 

  • Anonymous

    Some quick thoughts:

    The Tarzan books from Edgar Burroughs depicted Negroes within a biological hierarchy.  For Burroughs, there was the Ape, followed by the Negro, then the German, and finally the English lord.  Here, Negroes were placed within an actual jungle setting, natural to the savage, and fitting for their violent ways.  Typical Negro behaviors were accepted as natural within that context.

    Certainly H. P. Lovecraft had no desire to romanticize Negroes, and in spite of certain comments within his stories, never really wrote about them as Negroes, as far as I know. 

    Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe was an attempt to “civilize” the native, making him into a Christian of sorts.  It is clear that Defoe/Crusoe viewed most savages as less capable. 

    I’m guessing that for most “pre-racially aware” whites, black traits were simply a given, and not something to proselytize over, one way or the other.  They certainly were not suitable as protagonists to any degree, and they certainly were not routinely made into something they are not, such as what we witness in Hollywood and advertising, today.

    • Anonymous

      I would recommend Lovecraft’s “The Street” to anyone with a healthy racial instinct (or even a sickly one, I suppose.)
      Read it here: http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lovecraft/thestreet.htm

    • Anonymous

      Lovecraft was influenced by Oswald Spengler’s theory of history, which adds an interesting angle to the decay to savagery and dark, primitive religion one sees in his writings.

  • Anonymous

    This is a minor point, but some feel Truman Capote ( a close friend of Harper Lee’s) really wrote “To Kill A Mockingbird.”

  • Anonymous

    One little-known masterpiece of race realism I read was Floyd Salas’s “Tattoo the Wicked Cross.” The protagonist is a light-complexioned Spanish boy who is thrown into a juvenile detention facility whose main bully is a sexual predator who calls himself the Buzzer. What sets the novel apart from most coming of age lit is that The Buzzer is black, and his victims are overwhelmingly lighter children, what he calls “Paddy boys” (presumably a knock on the Irish).

    Salas himself is Spanish, and the book shreds PC canards left and right while also remaining utterly convincing. Child rights advocate, author, and attorney Andrew Vacchs is one of the book’s foremost champions. I encourage all race-realists (and those just in search of a good read) to pick it up.

    In a sane world, it would be more popular than “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

  • Anonymous

    I haven’t read her, but from what I’ve heard, she would at least meet that qualification… well maybe not, she was prone to demagoguing the representatives of the other side too, wasn’t she? I say give the other side its say, and let it say it well; if you can’t beat them at their best, then you lose.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately, there is a very marked tendency in American fiction to consciously or subconsciously to compare the put-upon black victim of the story with Christ.
     With a nation with deep christian roots this resonates very strongly.
    The general idea is that the victim (or hero) is put-upon, accursed, abused, hated, persecuted but throughout all his trials and ordeals maintains the uttmost impeccability and dignity.The idea is also of the gentle, but strong man-mountain giant as typified by Paul Robeson, being teased and harried by nasty little smug pygmy white bigots, of which we know that Robeson is a million times the man.
     It’s a very, very powerful meme and harks back to a deeply held atavism of the scarifice of the righteous by the nasty and evil.
    The movie the ‘Green Mile’ was all about this.

    I almost feel unclean to write that the reality is very different.If we consider murder rates, particular of very vulnerable victims, and who’s doing that murdering
    The true test of character is how those with overwhelming power (this includes such people who have power of life and death over a victim due to their being armed in a criminal situation) actually show or do not show mercy to their victims.

  • Anonymous

    Minor correction. It’s  ”Mr.  Sammler’s  Planet.”

    It’s been many years since I’ve read it, but I also recall  some race realism in Bellow’s “The Dean’s December.”

  • Beloved Comrade

    According to The Atlantic, Jan. 30, 2012, here are the “Greatest Books of All Time as Voted by 125 Famous Authors”:

    Top Ten Works of the 20th Century
    1. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
    2.The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
    3. The Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust
    4. Ulysses* by James Joyce
    5. Dubliners* by James Joyce
    6. One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
    7. The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner
    8. To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf
    9. The complete stories of Flannery O’Connor
    10. Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov

    Someone LOVES the Russian authors.  
    I must be a literary heathen.  Most on this list are unreadable, dull and ponderous, AFAIC, starting with Ulysses.  Could someone explain the greatness of this virtually unreadable author?   Joyce, remains a mystery, his stream-of-consciousness writing represents hours of labored reading, time I will never recover.  Same with One Hundred Years of Solitude.  Awful beyond description.

    Where is 1984?  Brave New World? No Steinbeck or Hemingway?

    Well, at least The Audacity of Hope wasn’t included, or To Kill a Mockingbird

    • Bardon Kaldian

       This is not about topic, so I’ll answer briefly (if this is possible):

      * high modernist authors (and some post-modernist) are favored by literary culture. I have to admit, I favor them to. IMO, the list is absolutely Anglo-centric (re language), since general European informed reader would certainly dump F.Scott Fitzgerald, perhaps Nabokov, and certainly early work by Joyce, and include Kafka, Thomas Mann, Robert Musil and, possibly, Broch, Borges and Alejo Carpentier. English speaking authors on the list should include Joseph Conrad, D.H. Lawrence, Henry James or Malcolm Lowry. Personally, I agree with William Somerset Maugham that Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time” is the greatest fiction to date- I’d include 21st century, too. Be as it may- top 10 (or 15, or 20, or 30, or ..) is always debatable.

      * Nabokov wrote these two novels in English, so they’re part of American literature. Overrated, IMO, but they were influential on post-modernist authors like Thomas Pynchon or Don DeLillo.

      *  Yes, you are a literary heathen ;^)))))

      * “Ulysses” is, IMO, greater as an experiment than as a lasting literary accomplishment. I admit- it didn’t have this “click” for me as did best works by Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Flaubert or Faulkner. Others- George Orwell (I see you mentioned 1984.)- differed in their opinion:
      http://orwell.ru/library/essays/whale/english/e_itw
      “.. It would be absurd, for instance, to look on Ulysses as merely a show-up of the horror of modern life, the ‘dirty Daily Mail era’, as Pound put it. Joyce actually is more of a ‘pure artist’ than most writers. But Ulysses
      could not have been written by someone who was merely dabbling with
      word-patterns; it is the product of a special vision of life, the vision
      of a Catholic who has lost his faith. What Joyce is saying is ‘Here is
      life without God. Just look at it!’ and his technical innovations,
      important though they are, are primarily to serve this purpose….”

      * Steinbeck & Hemingway are dated, but readable. Try read Mann’s “Doctor Faustus” and Leonov’s “The Thief”. This will put Steinbeck & Hemingway in their proper place.

      * as for lists of literary works, I think the best & most balanced is a Norwegian one:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100_Best_Books_of_All_Time

    • Bardon Kaldian

      I’ve read this list: http://goo.gl/A0FNP

      Though I disagree & agree on this and that- the list is imprecise & unfair. If this is about imaginative literature- why such an emphasis on novels & fictions, and neglect of other literary forms- say, epics and literary non-fiction (Homer, Plato (Symposion), Montaigne, Emerson, Schopenhauer, Robert Burton (The Anatomy of Melancholy),  Richard Jefferies (The Story of my Heart), Nietzsche, Saint-Simon’s memoirs, LaRochefoucauld, Boswell’s “Life of Dr. Johnson”, Herzen’s “My Past and Thoughts”, Canetti’s “Crowds and Power” ..).

      After a time, novels wear out, but essays & good philosophy & memoirs live on.

      • Anonymous

        “After a time, novels wear out, but essays & good philosophy & memoirs live on. ”

        Whether this is in fact the case, I will not comment.  However, it is an old idea, and the arguments of Socrates, especially in Symposium, were to a larger degree designed by Plato to support much the same argument.   

        Although it could be said that Eryximachus (the purveyor of techne) and Aristophanes were interchangeable (the order of their speech was placed through accident), it is nevertheless the case that the two poets, Aristophanes and Agathon, (both representing aspects of non-philosophic  knowledge) were refuted by Socrates and, in the end, only the poets and the philosopher were left (with the latter schooling the former on the limits of comedy and tragedy).

        Whatever the case, and however one judges art/philosophy, neither the modern day Negro nor his historical counterpart could ever approach white philosophers, or white artists such as Proust, that much is sure.

        • Bardon Kaldian

          There are/were a few Blacks writing readable & passable non-fiction, but they are seriously limited. Among relatively “recent” non-fiction writers – who have been writing in last 2-3 decades of the past century (Henry Corbin, Leszek Kolakowski, Ernst Nolte,  Mircea Eliade, Northrop Frye, Lewis Mumford, Max Jammer (OK, these two are older), Jacques Le Goff, David Bohm, Hans Eysenck, …)- no Blacks. I don’t see how a Black person could have penned masterpieces like E.R. Dodds’ “The Greeks and The Irrational” or Faure’s “History of Art”, or Spengler’s ramblings, a mixture of brilliant insights & delusional nonsense.
          It’s beyond Blacks’ mental & emotional & spiritual radius.

    • http://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX Jared Taylor

      At one time, I was very impressed with Nabokov and must have read five or six of his novels. He is immensely intelligent and learned, and makes triple puns in French, English and  Russian (I had to have the Russian explained to be by a friend). I still think he is well worth reading.

      I agree with you about Joyce: I cannot understand the fuss. And I tried very hard to appreciate Faulkner but failed.

  • Laura White

    Thank you Monsieur Taylor for another perspicacious piece of work. 

    I was pleased that you referenced the inspiring diary writings of Scott. These contrast nicely with another failed mission to the North Pole, that of the Swede Salmon August Andrée by balloon in 1897, that I just became aware of after reading in the New York Times Book Review of a new work on this failed mission : 

    “Falling Short of the North Pole” (tiny.cc/y006q) is a NYTBR review of Alec Wilkinson’s “The Ice Balloon – SS Andrée and the Heroic Age Of Arctic Exploration”. 

    With the usual sneering and contempt, the Times reviewer presents this 1897 attempt to reach the north pool by balloon as an act of European hubris and stupidity. Left out are any references to the glorious and uniquely European nature of late 19th-century exploration; instead the reviewer makes it seem like Andrée was an idiot, and incompetent, and indeed that in addition to hubris the expedition failed because the explorers lacked the wisdom and respect for the arctic environment that the noble Eskimo and other primitive ice-dwellers possess. 

    Think I’m kidding? Consider this passage: 

    Hmm: This is strange. The Sunday book review of this book made three references to native arctic dwellers, but for some reason there is no mention of any noble ice savages in the online version. 

    Basically what the Times said about the inuits in relation to Andrée’s balloon flight (and what I want to quote) : 1) Their native wisdom of living in an icebox was untouchably superior to the haughty, incompetent white man’s; 2) The Times claims that there was speculation in Sweden after their disappearance that Andrée and his expedition were set upon by savages and murdered in the frozen tundra. In other words: the white man is not only technically inferior to the savage, he is inherently racist by assuming the savage is inhabited by non-existent criminal proclivities. 

    It should be interesting to read Wilkinson’s book to see what this author really thinks about these courageous pioneers. Given its title, it might not be as bad as the New York Times makes it out to be. 

    Sincerely, 

    - crimesofthetimes.com

    • http://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX Jared Taylor

      What you describe sounds exactly like what we should expect from the Times. 

      I have never heard of this explorer or of the book. Perhaps you could review the book for this site. If you are interested, please contact me here: http://amren.com/contact/

      Best regards,
      Jared Taylor

  • Anonymous

    I used to have a Politically Incorrect Fiction list on Amazon but they have since deleted it. Some of the books included were:
    Sixth Column by Robert A. Heinlein – featuring a weapon that could kill Asians only
    Tarzan the Ape Man by E R Burroughs
    The
    Mote in God’s Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
    Various Robert E. Howard, Jack London and H.P. Lovecraft tales
    Norman Spinrad’s The Iron Dream is a satire but still a decent read
    Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Prioress’s Tale” is so anti-Semitic that it was left out of the expensive leather Easton volume of The Canterbury Tales.
    The John Franklin Letters is an anonymous work that inspired Wm Pierce to write The Turner Diaries

    in addition to many of those books already listed.

    • Bardon Kaldian

      # I used to have a Politically Incorrect Fiction list on Amazon but they have since deleted it.#

      Why I’m not surprised ?

  • Bardon Kaldian

    While I didn’t read LOTR (I’m not much into fantasy, and this is fiction aimed primarily at adolescents- tho, no exclusively), many have noted that Blacks didn’t care about it, especially the movies.
    Everything about LOTR is European, names are Celtic-Germanic- Slavic- quasi-Roman-…, the setting is packed with pale-faces (if they have human form). Although Tolkien had assimilated & remade much of non-European mythology, mostly Hindu- the whole epic is actually an “Aryan” (in broadest sense) one.

    I don’t see what Blacks or Muslims or Chinese can see/read to identify with (I mean groundlings).

  • http://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX Jared Taylor

    I was thrilled by the ring trilogy when I was in high school, and am sure I would enjoy it if I were to read it now. However, as a youngster, the racial significance escaped me completely. Perhaps I was obtuse, but the race element in the book may be clear only to the undeceived. It does seem quite clear in the movies.

  • http://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX Jared Taylor

    This is a good point. Movies are extremely powerful, and the damage they do is no doubt infinitely greater. 

    • Drew

      Film is the art of choice to depict the drama–sometimes very scary drama to detect–of how people deep-down know that which they vert  itensely deny on the surface to both themselves and to those with whom they interact.   It is not that racial (and gender) realism has not been confronted.   The confrontation has been split from personal awareness and from shared social acknowledgement.  

    • JohnEngelman

      Hollywood movies contributed to the sexual revolution by portraying non marital sex as more exciting than marital sex.
       
      Michael Medved has documented that G and PG rated movies are more likely to be profitable than R rated movies. Nevertheless, over half of Hollywood movies are R rated, because they reflect values current in the movie industry. 

  • Anonymous

    Actually two French authors (for whatever reason), have managed to sum up the White predicament very well by using the vehicle of fiction.
    They are Jean Raspail with his ‘Camp of the Saints’ (a prescient piece, published over 30 yeras ago that sums up exactly what’s going on in the EU and the cowardice and foolishness of political leaders), and Pierre Boulle with his ‘Planet of the Apes’.
    Now, don’t get me wrong.I’m not making a crude and nasty simian comparision with ethnic minorities and apes.I’m trying to explore the the hidden motive to Boulle’s novel (which is fsilisr to most of us only as a movie).I’ve argued this point before, and most people seem to disagree with me.Of course the idea of apes ever having any cognitive intelligence to work as a slave class is pure nonsense and biologically impossible.I believe that Boulle was trying to use the apes as a metaphor, the obvious comparison is with slavery in the USA.Basically Whites at the time thought they could lead easy lives by importing black slaves to work, and the thought that one day blacks might actually conquer their descenants and force *them* into slavery ridiculous.But Boulle was trying to warn us that it is not so ridiculous.
     Mass third world immigration into the west must be seen in the same way.

    • Anonymous

      I have read Boulle’s ‘Planet of the Apes’. It is quite different from any of the movies. I recommend it. I would also recommend ‘Great Apes’ by Will Self as a psychological exploration of the ‘other’. A man awakes to find he is an ape in a world run by apes. The apes, though intelligent, act very differently from us.

  • Anonymous

    Harry Potter, yes Harry Potter, is the most race realist book series I have read.

    Yes, they are liberals, but they are liberals who keep other races as slaves (house elves), gas other humanoid races to death as vermin (gnomes), regard certain races as greedy capitalists (goblins), are scared of large retarded races (giants), and segregate themselves completely from human muggles, and feel no obligation to use their abilities to help them.
    The heroes feel liberal sympathies for these groups, but come to realise that house-elves really do have different personalities and inteligence and that slavery is justified and only a tiny minority can be equals, gnomes really are mindless vermin with no more brains than an animal, despite their humanoid features, goblins really can’t be trusted, and giants really are stupid and dangerous. And that muggles really are best left to themselves and barred from wizarding society. And they come to realise that the system is worth preserving as it is, with future generations going through the exact same kind of society as their parents.
    There are non-realist liberal characters who are mocked, sympathetically, while portrayed as bumbling fools. The loony left is represented by Xenophilius Lovegood (awesome name), and his daughter Luna, who believes that gnomes are wonderful creatures and you should feel proud when they bite your fingers.
    I highly recommend Harry Potter, and other fantasy and science fiction literature, as a superb way to get past liberals’ mental blocks, to get them thinking about innate inequalities between races. Perhaps it’s a good way to start discussions of these topics.

    Edit: I forgot to mention, Steve Sailer covered this briefly, although he missed most of the race realist points about it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX Jared Taylor

      A clever analysis of Harry Potter that had not occurred to me, despite having read almost all of the Harry Potter books to my daughters.

  • Anonymous

    Mr Taylor.
                       From what I have read so far of your writings, and gleaned from your video presentations, I conclude that you are obviously very intelligent, knowledgeable and passionate about your subject, have a proven track record in being able to write eloquently, with the ability to articulate thoughts, concepts, and ideas coherently.

    If there is anyone alive today who can put together a good, even brilliant, race-realist novel it is Jared Taylor himself. Why don’t you give it a go?. Have you never thought about it?. You already mentioned some ideas in the above essay. If I had your intelligence and writing ability I would be writing a race-realist novel right now. You should go for it.

  • je suis paganisme

    Ayn Rand, while supposedly not a racialist, had Nordic-featured characters as heroes in her books.

    An intuitive approach (seeing the whole forest) in this area is better than a sensory one (seeing  individual trees). 

    Praise of European civilization/races is the forest. A single plank of WN is the tree.

    I feel that when a book is demanded to be WN, it is a Germanic imperative that would actually stunt a writer’s ability.

    WN must rise naturally from the mind of the artist, like the vegetation after a rain–it cannot be demanded.   And it is the background, the backdrop, not the main thing. That which is hinted at, alluded to, whether in literature or in painting, is the more powerful.

  • Nightsurgeon28

    Robert E. Howard had a strong sense of racial conciousness throughout his writings as well.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve heard this saying expressed in different ways but the incarnation I like the most is, ‘A novel is a lie masquerading as the truth’.

    I stopped reading novels and watching movies years ago because I couldn’t stand the in-your-face racial ‘subtexts’ (pardon the oxymoron). While the main plot might be about love or war, most movies, novels, and plays today always seem to include a racial message embedding in the prose. I can’t enjoy movies, novels, or play anymore because I’m always waiting for the ubiquitous and inevitable racial message.

    The last book I read was “Childhood’s End” by Aurthur C. Clarke. While I enjoyed the broad story of an a benevolent alien race with an ulterior motive (an unique and original idea that is the hallmark of A.C. Clarke), it too included racial issues. (The book I read before that was “Camp of the Saints” because it was mentioned often by AR and AR readers.)  Even Mr. Clarke (in 1953) couldn’t resist taking a stab at racism. In the novel, the aliens end Apartheid in South Africa and the last man on earth was black.

    A novel (play or movie) is a lie. They are distorted impression of the real world (such as black doctors, engineers, and computer specialist that proliferate TV dramas). They manipulate and twist reality in subtle yet profound ways. If the author wants an engineer, why not make the engineer black or female when the obvious choice would be a white male.
      
    Aristotle consider “Oedipus Rex” to be the perfect tragedy.  Despite that fact that the play Romeo and Juliet and the movie Titanic were great successes, Hollywood and the publishing industry don’t like investing in tragedies. Most readers and movie goers want a ‘happy ending’ and tragedy doesn’t do well.

    Hollywood and the publishing industry are unlikely to produce ‘pro-white’ movies and books. For all we know, there may be hundreds of submission of pro-white novels and screenplay being submitted but they have zero chance of being produced and seen by the public.

    Writers know what gets published and they give publishers what they want. Innocent black man accused of raping a white woman? Yes. Guilty black man convicted of raping a white woman? No.

    ‘A novel is a lie masquerading as the truth’. Unfortunately, people are more comfortable with the lie than the truth.      

  • http://www.dailykenn.com/ Daily Kenn

    Acting out fantasies is the stuff of insanity. 

    We live in an insane world in which White people imagine America to be Maycomb, Alabama. 

    It’s abject denial, plain and simple. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX Jared Taylor

    Silly mistake. This was supposed to be Bird.

  • http://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX Jared Taylor

    I actually reviewed this book in one of the early issues of the print version of American Renaissance:

    http://www.amren.com/ar/1995/06/#article2 

  • Anonymous

    One major stumbling block to the writing of such a book has been removed. Thanks to Amazon and the Kindle, and Amazons new policy of sharing 70% of the sales to authors, there are no longer  liberal left wing  publishing houses denying authors a chance to see their work reach the public. Anyone can publish now, and be rewarded for it as %70 of sales changes the game.

  • Anonymous


    Our hearts do stir at the story of the Spartans at Thermopylae, the Texans at the Alamo, and the British at Roark’s Drift, but those were battles against overwhelming odds. That is not how the racial struggle is being fought.”

    I agree that the racial struggle is not being fought like this; however, the perfidious and insane behavior of the pacifist missionary and his daughter in the film Zulu (although not historically accurate) is a good illustration of the foolish liberal do-gooder behavior we see so often.  This makes Zulu more than just a war/last stand movie where whites happen to be fighting against blacks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=1097046039 REGVLVS

    A caveat: I think “Rorke’s Drift”, not “Roark’s …”, is the correct rendering.

    There is actually a potential exposing a broadly White rather than a narrowly “British” character in that  story though. One of the men honored with Victoria’s Cross  for gallantry in that battle (and the very first man of the South African Forces so honored) was Christian Ferdinand Schiess. He was Swiss-born and a corporal during the battle, who fought heroically despite having been wounded several days prior.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Ferdinand_Schiess

  • http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=1097046039 REGVLVS

    I totally disagree that 1984 is negative towards Whites: it certainly does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as “Mockingbird”.

  • Anonymous

    There has always been a strong link between the novel and individualism. Poetry, on the other hand, has no such link. So it’s not at all surprising that while most of the major novelists of the last century were liberals,  many of its major poets were right-wingers (Pound, Eliot, Stevens, Yeats, Rilke, Trakl, Benn, George, etc.). Even today,  despite what a lot “race realists” claim, it’s quite easy to find major poets who don’t follow the PC line on racial issues. The Australian poet Les A. Murray (see his Subhuman Redneck Poems) and the Englishman Geoffrey Hill (who’s been accused of using Enoch Powell-like language in his poems) come to mind. Don’t forget that modern poetry began with Stephane Mallarme’s claim that the point of poetry was “to purify the language of the tribe.”

  • silviosilver

    Bonfire is more anti-PC (or non-PC) than race-realist, and while the anti-PC tone pervades the novel it’s not really central to the plot (and this despite the protagonist’s role as “The Great White Defendant”).  Bonfire’s an excellent read, no question, but it doesn’t really rise to the level of greatness (except in comparison to the rubbish published in the last fifty years). 

    By the way, I reread Bonfire just last year; it hasn’t really aged at all.  Still very much worth checking out for those who never got around to it.

  • razorrare

    Racial messages/lessons can be found reading Aesop’s Fables.

  • jackellis

    Harold Covinington’s Northwest novels are very good. The Brigade is the best. 

  • curri

    George MacDonald Fraser’s comic historical novel of slavery and the slave trade, Flash for Freedom, might be a good choice for introducing an intelligent young white male to racial realism.  Unlike most historical novels it stresses accuracy and includes footnotes. 

  • Apuleius

    TKAM is not great literature. It is propaganda. They are not the same as great literature contains or references universal truth, whereas propaganda is only concerned with advancing a political point of view without regard for the truth.

    Where TKAM fails is in its portrayal of the union of the righteous, namely the “right kind of whites” and the noble suffering negroes, pitted against the power and evil of the ”wrong kind of whites”, namely the poor white trash, who are portrayed as the real benighted savages. In this it has much in common with Uncle Tom’s Cabin, both being the inferior fictional product of overprotected white women.

    Others have commented before on how distorted this portrayal really is in that it posits the nexus of political power in the South to have been poor whites rather than the wealthier ones. In other words, the power rests with the wicked, irredeemable Ewells who live in a shanty at the edge of the community rather than the noble, educated, enlightened Atticus Finch who lives in the center of town. Strange world that!

    The emotional power of TKAM guarantees it place as great propaganda in the tradition of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It’s derivative nature and lack of veracity show it to be not so great literature, on the other hand.

    As for race realist great literature, try Shakespeare’s Othello, or any of Faulkner’s work.

  • Apuleius

    Perhaps the penultimate race realist masterpiece is Joseph Conrad’s novella ”The Heart of Darkness.”