The Long Retreat on Race

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 23, 2013

The capitulation of James Kilpatrick.

William P. Hustwit, James J. Kilpatrick: Salesman for Segregation, The University of North Carolina Press, 2013, $34.95, 310 pp.

James Jackson Kilpatrick, Jr. (1920 – 2010) was a hugely popular conservative commentator of the latter part of the 20th century. Thanks to television, he became one of America’s first “celebrity journalists” and, with William Buckley, personified the Right. Before that, however, he was one of the country’s best known segregationists.

How did he make the switch? Did he change his views? Sacrifice his principles? A little—or a lot—of both? William Hustwit, who teaches history at the University of Mississippi, has written a biography of Kilpatrick that tries to answer these very questions.


Defender of the South

Although Kilpatrick lived for many years in Richmond and considered himself a spokesman of the South, he was born and raised in Oklahoma. His ancestors were Southerners, however, and Kilpatrick, Sr., whose name he bore, got the middle name of Jackson in honor of Stonewall Jackson. The father was a libertarian who thought government should get out of the way. He flouted prohibition laws, and this defiance of authority made a deep impression on his son. The family suffered during the Depression, which was a harsh, early lesson in the importance of hard work and self reliance.

Young James was a precocious boy—he was reading the Decameron at age five—and he and his brother and sister spent hours quoting lines of poetry to each other. He was editor of his junior-high and high-school newspapers, and never doubted that he would be a newsman. Kilpatrick graduated from high school at age 16 and studied journalism at the University of Missouri, where he got the nickname “Kilpo,” which stuck with him for life. In 1941, just out of college, he got a job with the Richmond News Leader, where he was to work for 25 years. He tried to enlist in the Army Air Corps but was rejected because of asthma, and as other newsmen left for the war, he took on greater responsibilities.

When he first came to the News Leader, he did not have well defined political views, but the paper’s publisher, John Dana Wise, gave him a thorough education in Burke, Calhoun, John Randolph of Roanoke, and Russell Kirk. Kilpatrick began calling himself “an 18th century liberal” or a “Whig,” and began to fear, as he put it, that tyranny would come from a federal government that would become “more expansive and more mild” and “would degrade men without tormenting them.”

In 1950, at age 30, Kilpatrick became the editor of the News Leader, as well as its main editorial writer. He wrote an astonishing 10,000 words a week—half a million a year—and developed a vigorous style partly modeled on that of H. L. Mencken. His chief enemy was Washington: “The more I meditate upon the bloated thing our federal government has become, the more convinced I am that only drastic surgery will save us.” He laughed at the idea of equality, and believed Southern blacks were content with segregation. He thought the Klan was rabble, but he honored the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of “individual independence from the massive socialist state.”

He first came to national attention in a surprising way. He had immersed himself in the case of Silas Rogers, a black man convicted of killing a policeman. He found inconsistencies in the trial transcript, hunted down witnesses the defense had overlooked, and became convinced Rogers was innocent. He started a campaign for Rogers that convinced the governor to pardon him in 1953, earning Kilpatrick national praise and the accolades of the black press. Kilpatrick was furious when Rogers later raped a woman and went back to prison. “Sometimes you have to learn lessons the hard way,” he wrote.

The 1954 Brown decision galvanized Kilpatrick. For some time, he had been predicting big trouble from the Supreme Court, and he thought Earl Warren was a terrible choice as Chief Justice. And yet, when the court declared segregated schools unconstitutional, Kilpatrick was strangely calm, urging reflection rather than action. Later, he explained:

I think all of us in the South were intensely conscious at that moment that the whole country was looking at us, so in some excess of gentility, we were determined to be on our best behavior. Nobody likes to cry in front of strangers.

The plaintiffs of Brown v. Board and their children.

The plaintiffs of Brown v. Board and their children in 1953.

Kilpatrick shook off his “excess of gentility” and got to work on a two-pronged strategy: One was “interposition,” whereby the states could simply ignore the Supreme Court ruling, and the other was “massive resistance,” which meant shutting down the public schools and making state money available for private-school tuition.

“Interposition” was a legal argument based on the writings of Founders and other historical figures, who argued that state sovereignty meant states could ignore federal laws and court decisions they honestly believed to be unconstitutional. Kilpatrick republished entire speeches by Madison, Jefferson, and Calhoun, and added his own stinging commentary, calling the Warren court “a judicial junta that simply seized power.”

Kilpatrick wrote tirelessly, and his impassioned editorials were in great demand as pamphlets all over the South. He almost single-handedly made “interposition” a household word for perhaps the first time in US history. He flatly rejected the idea that interposition was outmoded. “Is Jefferson out of date?” he asked. “If so, the American Republic is dead.” He also denied that the Civil War had settled the question. Violence, he argued, is not a Constitutional argument. He consistently treated “United States” as a plural noun, as in “the United States are a republic.”

Kilpatrick believed states had a Constitutional right to secede, but kept that view private. He did, however, call for a fanciful Constitutional amendment banning segregation. Even if it passed Congress, rejection by Southern states would mean it would never be ratified, and the amendment’s failure would endorse the Southern way of life.

Behind Kilpatrick’s strategy was the delusion that if the South could hold out for just a few years, forced integration of schools in the North would be so agonizing for Yankees that they would see the wisdom of segregation. In the meantime, he tried to peddle interposition as a strictly legal, non-racial argument that appealed to all sections and rose “above the sometimes sordid level of race and segregation.”

That failed, of course. Everyone knew that race was the only reason Southerners suddenly started jabbering about interposition. Kilpatrick himself could not resist putting a chapter on race into his book, The Sovereign States, which was supposed to be about states’ rights. Published by Henry Regnery in 1957 and now available on the Internet, The Sovereign States is an impressively researched, closely argued book that still makes excellent reading. And Kilpatrick’s observations about race are still true:

In reading, in reasoning, in educational aptitudes, in all the standardized tests that produce an “I.Q.,” the median Negro at the eighth grade level customarily is found nearly three school years behind the median white. Is this deficiency to be blamed upon the quality of the South’s Negro schools? Basically, the same findings have turned up in the District of Columbia, where a bounteous Congress in times past provided the finest Negro schools on earth.

As a legal argument, interposition won over the South. By 1957, no fewer than eight states—Alabama, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Tennessee—had passed resolutions of interposition rejecting federal authority to integrate schools.

But then came Little Rock. In 1957, Arkansas’s governor Orval Faubus cited interposition to justify sending the National Guard to prevent court-ordered school integration. Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne Division, and Faubus backed down. This was an enormous shock to Kilpatrick, who never expected Eisenhower to send troops, and it doomed interposition. “It looks mostly as if Reconstruction days are here again,” he wrote. He blasted Eisenhower as a tyrant, but that did not resegregate the schools.

With his legal arguments once again crushed by Yankee infantry, Kilpatrick—and Virginia—fell back on local remedies. Even after Little Rock, two out of three Virginia whites preferred to eliminate public schools rather than integrate them. Virginia called a convention to amend the state constitution and remove the requirement that the state operate public schools. The state government then voted to provide grants to Virginians so they could send children to private schools. Kilpatrick’s paper cheered lustily.

In the most celebrated example of “massive resistance,” Prince Edward County kept its public schools closed for five years. White families pitched in and built a new, private school, Prince Edward Academy. Kilpatrick raised money for the academy, and gave its library 10,000 books. Whites offered to build a school for blacks as well, but “civil rights” leaders rejected the offer, because they knew that idle black children were a potent symbol of “racism.” The county’s public schools were closed until 1964, when they were reopened by federal court order. (Prince Edward Academy continued to admit only whites, and lost its tax-exemption in 1978. It fell on hard times, changed its name to Fuqua School in 1993, and now admits blacks.)


Morton School in Prince Edward County, closed.

In 1958, the Virginia legislature created the Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government to work with other Southern states to protect state sovereignty. Kilpatrick was made head of its publications department, and by 1969, when the commission closed down, he had distributed more than two million books and 16,000 pamphlets.

Again, however, the idea was to ignore race and educate the country about states’ rights. The commission kept its distance from the white Citizens’ Councils, and would not even let the publishers of Carlton Putnam’s Race and Reason—which was wildly popular in the South—use its mailing list. Kilpatrick wanted the commission “to stay absolutely free of the race issue.”

He found some support for his own writing outside the South, however, especially at William Buckley’s National Review, which supported segregation, and at US News and World Report, founded in 1948 by David Lawrence to oppose the New Deal. By 1957, he was becoming a national spokesman for both conservatism and segregation.

In 1958, Kilpatrick had a curious encounter with the Charlottesville, Virginia, Anti-Defamation League, which was distributing pro-integration literature. Kilpatrick wrote an editorial pointing out that if the ADL’s job was to fight anti-Semitism, it should stop stirring up dislike for Jews by meddling with popular institutions. Southern Jews who read the editorial swamped the Charlottesville office with mail, telling it to leave segregation alone. Kilpatrick had a meeting with ADL representatives, and they promised to keep quiet about Southern institutions.

Kilpatrick continued to believe that if the South could only hang on, the North would come around, both on states’ rights and on race. He urged Virginia’s governor, Lindsay Almond, to defy federal orders and let himself be arrested rather than integrate schools, but Almond was not made of such stern stuff. All across the South, politicians and school bureaucrats were submitting to the federal government, and Virginia followed suit.

Brown had integrated schools but nothing else. There was still legal segregation of private businesses in the South, and in 1960 black students started organizing “sit-ins,” in which they took seats at lunch counters, asked to be served, and waited for the police to arrest them. That year, there was a sit-in in Richmond, and Kilpatrick came by to see for himself. He was dismayed to find a group of well-dressed, well-behaved blacks being jeered by loutish whites. He correctly saw the sit-ins as a sign that blacks would not be satisfied with school integration alone.

1960 sit-in in Greensboro, NC.

1960 sit-in in Greensboro, NC.

Likewise in 1960, he had a television debate with Martin Luther King. There appears to be no copy of the video on YouTube, but a transcript can be found here. Even the most ardent King supporters had to concede that Kilpatrick dominated King with legal arguments that made King’s moral arguments look like whining.


Kilpatrick was furious about the fawning treatment King was getting in the Northern press, and complained about what he called a “paper curtain” that sealed out the Southern view of race and civil rights. He was disgusted when the Associated Press refused to cover a story about a gang of blacks who had raped a white woman. King’s 1963 march on Washington and the accolades it won were too much for Kilpatrick. He sent a piece to the Saturday Evening Post called “The Hell He Is Equal.”

The Negro race, as a race, is in fact an inferior race. . . .Within the frame of reference of a Negroid civilization, a mud hut may be a masterpiece . . . . But the mud hut ought not to be equated with Monticello. . . Where is the Negro to be found? . . . He is lying limp in the middle of the sidewalk yelling he is equal. The hell he is equal.

Shortly before the piece was to come out, segregationists bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and the Post’s editor decided not to publish it.

By this time, Kilpatrick could see the Civil Rights Act of 1964 coming, and helped found a lobby to try to stop it. Once again, however, the Coordinating Committee for Fundamental American Freedoms soft peddled race and tried to couch the argument in libertarian terms. As he wrote for National Review, if the “citizen’s right to discriminate” is destroyed, “the whole basis of individual liberty is destroyed.” He made the case with his usual verve in the very effective pamphlet, Civil Rights and Legal Wrongs.

Kilpatrick also predicted “affirmative action” before just about anyone else, warning that any ban on legal discrimination would mean preferences for blacks. The only way an employer could prove he did not discriminate was to hire unqualified blacks, who would have to be “petted and pampered, cuddled and coddled.” It was probably Kilpatrick who first applied the term “reverse racism” to this process.

The Coordinating Committee’s work, including ads in newspapers all over the country, probably contributed to George Wallace’s successes in the Democratic presidential primaries in states such as Wisconsin, Maryland, and Illinois, but Kilpatrick had nothing but disdain for the Alabaman. “We need thinking men and God sends us George Wallace!” he wrote. “It’s enough to make a man lose his religion.” He thought Wallace was “a vainglorious young blockhead,” and preferred the smoother Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a dues-paying member of the NAACP who favored integration, but thought the federal government had no right to make it happen. Kilpatrick preferred this indirect approach to Wallace’s rough talk of “niggers.”

The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was, of course, a terrible blow to Kilpatrick. About this time, he wrote, “In my blue moments I see nothing ahead for this country but the decline that inevitably awaits those who will not learn the history of mankind.” With legal segregation gone, he hoped and expected that whites would simply steer clear of blacks in their private lives. At the same time, the 1964 act had removed the last excuse for blacks. As he noted: “The Negro says he’s the white man’s equal; show me.”

National stature

It was in this same year, when everything he had worked for had crumbled, that Kilpatrick got an opportunity that changed his life. The Long Island newspaper Newsday offered him a column with a promise of syndication. As he saw it, his role was “to present to a national audience the reasoned and calm point of view of a conservative white Southerner,” but that meant toning down anything about race. Instead, he blasted welfare and the Great Society.

His column was a hit, and the conservative afternoon paper, the Washington Star stole him away from Newsday in 1965. The Star promoted him effectively, and by1966 he was in 100 newspapers. He left Richmond and moved to Washington, and gave up his last duties at the News Leader a year later.

Author Prof. Hustwit notes a very significant event in 1966. The Saturday Evening Post offered to publish the piece it had killed in 1963, but with a milder title, “Negroes Are Not Equal.” Prof. Hustwit, who had access to Kilpatrick’s private papers, quotes from his reply: “From my own professional point of view, the problem is quite simply that I do not want—and could not possibly afford—to be publicly associated with those views, phrased with such vigor.” Kilpatrick explained that publishing the piece would hurt his column. The Post had the publication rights, however, and Kilpatrick even offered to buy them back for $1,500—a lot of money at the time—if that was what it took to bury the column.

As a national figure, Kilpatrick felt he had to trim his sails, though he still occasionally loosed his cannons on blacks. In 1967, he wrote: “[T]he law-abiding majority of this country, imperfect as it is, ought to put a hard question to large elements of the Negro community: When in the name of God are you people going to shape up?”

But mostly he backpedaled. When Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968 he astonished his old friends when he wrote that King “was the bravest man I ever knew in public life. . . . To watch one of his marches was to sense the awesome power of strong character combined with high purpose.” (He did manage to oppose the King holiday.)

It was television, however, that made Kilpatrick famous. He was a regular guest on Meet the Press, Inside Washington, and Agronsky & Company. He pioneered the idea of delivering not just opinions but personality. He understood that viewers wanted “a much more personalized journalism than tradition has permitted,” and carried around a makeup kit to make sure he looked good for the cameras. By 1980, his column was in 538 dailies and he had an annual income of more than $150,000. He was close to the Nixon White House, and the president sought his advice.

James Kilpatrick and Richard Nixon at the White House in 1974.

James Kilpatrick and Richard Nixon at the White House in 1974.

All this came at a price. By 1974 he was writing that the Brown decision had created “a far better America,” and in 1977 claimed he had overcome his “old-fashioned Southern racial prejudices.” Now, he said, he was just as incensed as anyone at “the virulent evils of a pervasive racism” that the federal government had wisely put down.

One thing he never backed down on was opposition to race preferences and to school busing. He liked to claim that he was now race blind whereas his opponents were still race-conscious troglodytes.

Some 5,000 march through South Boston to protest school busing in 1974.

Some 5,000 march through South Boston to protest school busing in 1974.

There were occasional flashes of the old Kilpatrick. In a television discussion of race preferences he asked a fellow guest, “How would you like to ride in an elevator constructed by an Eskimo, Chicano, or Black?” There were calls for his scalp, and he promised CBS he would apologize, but it is not clear that he ever did. In 1978, Kilpatrick complained that the 1965 immigration act was letting in a “tidal wave” of “racial and ethnic groups with little understanding of Western values,” but he does not seem to have thought very much about immigration. When Portuguese rule ended in Angola in 1975, however, he wrote that he “never feared for the black man at the hands of his oppressors half as much as at the hands of his liberators.”

In his private life, Kilpatrick escaped from the consequences of the changes he now claimed to accept. He built a house in rural Rappahannock County, Virginia, 85 miles away from Washington, where blacks were still deferential. He wrote in an elegant office with a zebra-skin rug, but fancied himself the successor to the Southern agrarian tradition. He wrote about the beauties of agriculture, the slow pace of rural life, and the spirit of the South.

Kilpatrick continued to write about politics, but in 1981 he started a column on English prose style, and his last three books were about writing. He became so divorced from his past that when PBS asked him for segregationist arguments to use in its documentary, Eyes on the Prize, he claimed he could no longer remember the ’50s and ’60s. In some cases, he simply lied. In 1988, he claimed he had sympathized with the sit-ins of 1960, and “ardently supported” the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Prof. Hustwit writes that Kilpatrick “still believed deeply in blacks’ inferiority,” but he offers only indirect proof. In 1985 Kilpatrick wrote privately: “I still regard interracial marriage as regrettable . . . . and hope that it always will remain an aberrant condition, to be tolerated in the name of a free society but not to be encouraged.”

In one of his last political opinions, no doubt fittingly, Kilpatrick completely reversed his earlier view of the role of the federal government in local decision-making. When the Supreme Court decided in 2007 that the cities of Seattle and Louisville could not use race as a criterion for balancing school populations, Kilpatrick rejoiced. What he once called the “judicial junta” was an honorable institution so long as it ruled his way.

The long retreat

What are those of us who prefer the early James Kilpatrick to make of his career? First, it is startling to think that even in 1964, a New York State paper would offer a column to a man who had distinguished himself as a segregationist. This is a tribute to Kilpatrick’s ability—he really could write—and a sign of how different the times were. The United States were not quite yet in today’s terrified lock step on race.

Second, even before he sought respectability as a national TV personality, it is curious that he pushed states’ rights as if they had nothing to do with race. Ordinary Americans were never going to care about federal encroachment on state sovereignty unless they were worried about specific policies the feds were trying to undo.

Finally, Kilpatrick, himself, certainly profited from his long retreat. As a domesticated “conservative,” he won fame, wealth, and influence that would have been beyond the reach of a principled “racist.” As Prof. Hustwit notes, Kilpatrick was unquestionably the nimblest of all the segregationists in changing his spots to keep up with the times.

James J. Kilpatrick

James J. Kilpatrick

And maybe his views really did change; who is Prof. Hustwit to insist that they did not? But if he did simply bury his convictions, would he have done more good as a provincial race realist than as a national conservative? All people who hedge their opinions in the hope of a larger audience convince themselves that discretion is the price of influence—as they bank their honoraria and swan through the corridors of power. And, like Kilpatrick, they build oases far from the racial chaos they no longer combat with all their strength.

Truth, however, especially the truth about race, needs more than obscure champions. It needs men like Arthur Jensen and Sam Francis. It needs men who are respected and prominent and who, unlike James Watson or James Kilpatrick, refuse to back down.

Kilpatrick unquestionably trimmed to reach prominence. Once he reached the top, would it have simply been impossible for him to speak the truth to the larger audience he obviously craved?

If Kilpatrick really did change, then God rest his erring soul. If he trimmed all the way to the grave, he forsook his obligations to the truth and to his people.

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.
  • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

    I was born in ’67 so I saw little of this firsthand, but a lot of the “black power” upheavals lasted well into the ’70s, which I do remember. It’s sad to think that when there was plentiful, undeniable evidence of the need for segregation, and when the little guy was standing up to forced busing and voting with his feet in “white flight”, the former leaders of the segregation defense movement were backing away from the fight.

  • Homo_Occidentalis

    Reading the story of an influential, intelligent, and reasoned (though I won’t say “principled”) man such as this has left me quite depressed. What hope have we to reverse our decline if men like Kilpatrick tried and failed using every trick in the book?

    • Spartacus

      “What hope have we to reverse our decline if men like Kilpatrick tried and failed using every trick in the book?”


      Not all of them. There’s still violence .

    • Hal K

      The next big transition is when whites become a minority. If even after that point whites refuse to engage in identity politics for their own group then it’s all over for them.

      There will be a key difference, however, which is that it will be nonwhites like Obama, rather than whites like Eisenhower, in the presidency. There will be no more room for people like Eisenhower in national politics, since nonwhites won’t vote for them. Hopefully mainstream conservatives will wake up when this point is reached.

      • John R

        I will give you one little piece of optimism. Remember our friend George Zimmerman? Remember his ethnicity? He is half White, and half Peruvian mestizo. Why is THAT significant? Because although Whites are destined to become a minority in this country, that does NOT translate into the rise of the power of blacks: My prediction is that people like George Zimmerman, “White Hispanics” if you will, will be the future majority race in America. And if the comments by Zimmerman’s brother are any indication, they are not going to be as paralyzed by White guilt as we pure White Majority types are.

        • Hal K

          Except that I wouldn’t count that as optimism. The objective should be to rid whites of white guilt, not to eliminate it through mixing. If you say whites have to be mixed with other people to eliminate white guilt then you have already conceded defeat. That is the whole point of white guilt anyway: to eliminate whites.

          • Erasmus

            Smart whites will hold their own and some make common cause with Asians. The dumb whites will become wiggers and their skanky females interbreed with blacks.

            IQ and social strata will separate out largely by color, as it has in Brazil and every other place that is “ethnically vibrant.”

            Still, I am sorry it has come to this. I hope Teddy Kennedy, Jacob Javits and Emmanuel Cellar all have an especially nasty part of hell to occupy…just kidding…slightly…maybe Trayboon’s there with them now.

          • Hal K

            Are smart whites really holding their own? I don’t think so. There are now fewer non-Jewish whites than Jews in Ivy League schools like Harvard.

          • T

            But so many white men marry Asian women, or have no children at all.
            Even the guy still alive, who wrote the Bell Curve, married an Asian- sheesh.

        • jackryanvb

          Start learning Spanish. Spanish speaking Whites tend to do very well in this fallen world.

          • ShermanTMcCoy

            Unfortunately, learning to speak the language of the illiterates can lower one’s IQ.

            I prefer German, Russian, and for those interested, Japanese.

          • Aditya Vivek Barot

            I agree with you insofar as the Spanish spoken by mestizo untermenschen is concerned. However, real Spanish, Castillian Spanish, is an ancient and noble language which is as expressive as it is enriching. I wouldn’t let these untermenschen prevent me from speaking the language of Cervantes, St. Ignatius, St. Francis Xavier, Donosco Cortes, and other luminaries.

            With that being said, I believe that it would be equally rewarding to learn French, German or Russian since some of the finest works of literature, philosophy and natural sciences are in these noble tongues.

          • ShermanTMcCoy

            Quite correct. I was exaggerating for effect.

        • Aditya Vivek Barot


          When people like me are in the majority, you will see riots against blacks. Indians HATE blacks. Indians ENVY and FEAR the white man. They WANT to be white which leads to a weird inferiority-superiority complex. Eric Hoffer’s superb treatise on mass-movements, “The True Believer” provides a more articulate analysis of this mentality.

          But, I digress. The point I am trying to make, is that once my kind is in the majority, blacks will suffer as they never did under the white man. As will Hispanics and Jews. Indians and Chinese don’t give a tinker’s cuss about these peoples and have absolutely no sense of Rule of Law or even civic sense. They’re in it for themselves, and in it to win it.

          This country will turn into third world hell-hole. Rife with corruption and decay. The upside, if you want to call it that, will be that Indian and Asian elites will defund and otherwise destroy all racial quotas for Blacks and other protected species.

          Nobody knows what they’re in for when my kind becomes the majority. America will, undoubtedly, be worse than Brazil since we’re not used to that sort of thing. Most of us, the ones who don’t have a lot of money, will run. Those who stay behind will be akin to Jewish Commissars: hateful, bigoted rapacious monsters determined to suck this nation dry like demented vampires.

          • Brian

            I’m not sure Indian-Americans are on track to become a majority…but I have no problem with Asians…people with a long, proud civilization with a history of achievement. Anything is better than black dysfunction and whining.

          • Talltrees

            “When people like me are in the majority, you will see riots against blacks. Indians HATE blacks.”

            If you are Asian Indian, you might have to wait a long time to become the majority. Hispanics are destined to be the majority.

    • Carney3

      Good point.

      Sam Francis wrote well about how men like Kilpatrick erred fundamentally in failing to make race the issue, in failing to use their considerable rhetorical and oratorical talents to spark and rally white racial consciousness.

      Perhaps that could still be done today.

  • jackryanvb

    The controlled, “Conservative” opposition given full access to the MSM, getting rich and comfortable in rural retreat in Virginia…

    30 pieces of silver.

    RINos, Neo Cons, Libertarians, moral majority, tea party, Ron Paul revolution etc.

    Too cowardly to fight, too fat to run.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      I’m so sick of all ideologies. They all get in the way of Truth, whatever that is, obfuscate the thing when it contradicts canon thought.

      No doubt, the liblefty kraken has always been the most obnoxious. The “conservative” reaction of the late 20th/early 21st century, culminating in the Neocon fiasco, however…

      Was actually pretty impressively successful for a while, before choking on it’s own obnoxiousness, a direct aping in many ways of the worst of the left in terms of tactics and lack of civility/reason. “Talking points”…oh Lord…

      No remotely popular modern American ideology, however, can fix our problems because all accept the profoundly flawed assumption of equality and magical social/economic/environmental silver bullets that address symptoms while ignoring unchanging reality.

      Let me put forth two extremes, thereby insulting adherents to both.

      Libertarianism – Healthy suspicion of accumulation of power, even though I disagree in large, nonetheless I have to wonder how much of this is due to the absurd misuse of government to impose modern racial ideology. I wonder if this misuse of power is indeed inherent (probably – power seems to have an effect on the brain similar to heroin) or also a direct result of belief in a huge, destructive, lie. Whites, justifiably see “government” as that which takes away wealth from us and redistributes it to alien others, correctly recognizes this for what it is (not a zero sum game, but rather a harming of one group to benefit another) and thereby the practical solution being a whittling down of obnoxious government to the point where this can be stopped. Does the hard core libertarian recognize this racial aspect of his/her beliefs? I don’t know. Not a mind reader, but I can’t help but wonder. Sometimes the modern expression of the ideology sounds as much like a denial of race reality as the worst of liblefty socialism.

      Social Democracy – This is the closest I can get to describing what I refer to as libleftyism. I’ll not spend as much with this one since I think most posters here understand intrinsically how these guys work. The entire concept of disparate impact exemplifies a profound deterministic abnegation of inequality, scapegoating the successful as sole responsible agents of the suffering of the less successful…the desperate passive-aggressive, ruthless soft core (but brutal) bullying needed to support this as well as tacit allegiance to supposed enemies who also buy into a big lie.

      Both of these ideological extremes (in the American context) suffer from the abnegation of Truth. Not that the Truth automatically therefore lies at some meely-mouthed, mushy, feel-good midpoint. If that midpoint is nonetheless firmly based upon the same profoundly flawed assumption, it may be even worse than either extreme!

      No set of ideological beliefs, “left”, right” “middle”, “conservative”, “liberal”, “socialist”, “capitalist”, whatever, can serve as the knight in shining armor that will save the day, nor even stop the slide down, if such is based on a gigantic LIE. And in our modern America, they ALL are.

      • Does the hard core libertarian recognize this racial aspect of his/her beliefs?

        For the most part, no.

        Hypothetical exercise:

        Imagine all levels of American government were as big and powerful as they are now, but white people exclusively ran it on behalf of a white ethnostate. I contend that in that hypothetical scenario, most of today’s frustration with big government would not exist. Furthermore, such a big government would be far far far less intrusive and abusive than what it really is in our real world. Even though it would spend just as much money.

        Second scenario: Keep everything else about modern America the same but just reduce the size, scope, spending and power of all levels of government. Would much really get better? No. And eventually, we would find ourselves back to square one because governments would become as big, big-spending and intrusive and abusive as it was before it was magically “shrunk.”

        Put it all together, and you’ll find out that the fundamental offending element is multiracialism and the attempt to cram jam multiple races into a unitary Yugoslavia-style polygot state.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          Yeah, I don’t know all the answers – NOBODY does – but that’s kind of the impression I get. I can see a libertarianesque situation working, within the context of a people of similar capacity and proclivity. I can also see a socialist system working in similar context.

          I personally DO tend toward the middle of any two extremes, especially when cherished principles of said extremes are based not on science, but on reasoning and logic regarding phenomena difficult to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. In this situation, I would say that charting a middle course between the two extremes, both claiming impressive intellectual foundations, is not folly.

          But again, our moderate position is just as compromised as either extreme by being founded upon the same shaky foundation of assumptions, therefore can serve as naught but a stopgap compromise that is ultimately doomed as well. Of course I also would like to point out a certain schizophrenic quality is inherent in our winner take all presidential democracy, where the middle is achieved in the big picture as a result of an alternating of extremes, which does leave alienated the vast moderate/apolitical mass of citizenry thereby augmenting cynicism and detachment from the political process.

          • FormerlyEdNY

            I had to read your post twice to comprehend your message. I seriously doubt that there are many blacks who can read what you wrote and even less who can comprehend it.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            I’ll take that as a compliment…

            I need to be more concise. I have a bad habit of stringing together very long sentences of dubious grammatical quality. Especially when I’m in a hurry.

      • Aditya Vivek Barot


        Superb analysis. One question: do you agree that a majority of Americans, specifically white Americans, march lock-step with Social Democrats because they believe in their values?

        That this country, from its inception, been a “leftist” State since its very formation militates against tradition. It was founded in rebellion against ancient authority, founded on abstract principles divorced from tradition, and that the current regime is mere evolution thereof?

        • NeanderthalDNA

          Oh thanks. I slopped those comments out in a hurry and they could use some editing, but since I’m not getting paid and actually do have something resembling a life, lol…

          Indian, eh? I’ve never had much problems with you guys, by the way, even the darker ones. I’m a heretical Christian-Buddhist, religiously, which might make me a reincarnated Cathar (wiki if unfamiliar), thence I have GREAT respect for the Vedic religions.

          I also don’t necessarily think darker people are unattractive, if they have basically Caucasian facial features and do not act like Bantu negroes. Just putting all that out there to get it out of the way.


          do you agree that a majority of Americans, specifically white Americans, march lock-step with Social Democrats because they believe in their values?


          No. Hard to say. Some of it, I think, is hard wired in the brain, thence impervious to reason or environment. Beyond that, I think…

          Most do not march lock step with any ideology. Many do not understand and American ideologies themselves tend toward “squishiness” regardless. We are pragmatic, I think.

          I believe most white Americans like the idea of a “social safety net” and for very good reasons. In the aggregate, we prefer a good mix of effective, competent government and market capitalism, whatever we may say.

          I think much of the polarization of opinion amongst American whites results from the great unspoken question of racial differences and their impact on people’s personal lives.

          The denial of racial differences impels the liblefty (social democrat) to use the libertarian/right as scapegoat while the a-racial libertarian detests his opposite likewise. Both invent all sorts of bizarre intellectual contraptions to explain “all the problems” in terms of “the enemy” and his ideology, all the while ignoring the massive drag down of a race of people whose average IQ is statistically significantly lower.

          Ideology in America is strange, partly because of what I just said, partly as a result of what you said. “Conservative” in our context is much closer to classic ‘liberalism”, while “liberal” is much closer to “socialism”, especially democratic socialism – hence my word, “liblefty”. People have written entire books on this, so that’s a very abbreviated version of my take on it, by the way.

          But “leftist from inception”? No, not at all. Classical liberalism from the inception, which again today means more like modern conservatism or more accurately, libertarianism. Our history, ideologically, i wold say, has been a steady if stuttering drift leftward, if anything, and I don’t necessarily have a problem with that intrinsically.

          I think much of white hostility to leftism has much to do with an accurate assessment of the specific racially redistributive nature of such, and the demonization of whites needed to do such.

      • John R

        We have two mainstream ideologies at work presently, in America: Liberalism and Conservatism. Both have good points and bad. The liberal wants society to be fair, and sees that government might be able to effect this. The conservative has a respect for tradition, but, in the free market context, feels that letting business alone will by some “invisible hand” right any wrongs. As I said, a case can be made for both positions. But, where they are BOTH WRONG is in this: They are both racially colorblind ideologies, and history is about the competition for resources and power, of different species, and sub-species. As such, Whites who espouse both positions are destined to be disappointed when they find there are NO true black “liberals” or “conservatives.” Blacks are really all racialists. Whites must be the same. We can argue ideologies amongst ourselves, but when it is in the context of group interrelations, we must all be race realists.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          The Republocrat-Demican Party is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

          Like I said, we do have a kind of schizo-democracy, at least on the “Jerry Springer” level of it all, the big show. Laundry list of the “left” vs. laundry list of the “right”, though in effect very little changes structurally between manic and depressive, lol…inertia…

          And so much of it is spent ignoring the Truth. The REAL 800 lb. invisible gorilla in the room. That thing’s HUGE!

          • John R

            “The 800 lb. gorilla in the room” yep, given the weight problems of many blacks, an excellent metaphor!

        • Jacobite2

          In the US today, as in Europe, race is the only issue. Until the question of who’s gonna run things is settled, nothing else matters. I wish we could eliminate the neologisms that Leftists have created to cloud thought and sidetrack discussion. “Racism” “Racialism” are words invented in the mid-19th Century. All these words are in fact debating-points. Like “Homosexual”. No need for such a word, and it is meaningless — there are 2 manners of reproduction: asexual and sexual. There is no such thing as homosexual; this is idiocy. Besides, there already existed a plethora of terms for poofters and buggers.

  • Spartacus

    “He was disgusted when the Associated Press refused to cover a story about a gang of blacks who had raped a white woman.”


    Sound familiar ?

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Man, you are a master of the unpleasant, aren’t you?

      Keep honing your skills.

      It’s Sunday – you’re Romanian, Orthodox?

      • Spartacus

        I am, but not a devout one .

        • NeanderthalDNA

          That’s fine. You will likely never find a religion that completely satisfies you if you are a true child of the evil old Enlightenment, lol…

          But the community building aspect of a traditional religion and national identity aspect is very important, I think.

          With me the Buddhist concepts of “Karma”, for example, make profound sense. Their concepts of the nature of “reality” jives much more with reason and real (crazy) modern physics/science. Some amazing scientific method precursor statements by old Gautama.

          On the other hand although I could NEVER be a biblical literalist, I think Christianity in general is symbolically brilliant and evocative of Truth, whatever that is. Also a big fan of omega point “theory”.

          The Cathars, who were BRUTALLY exterminated by the Catholic Church, appear to have incorporated eastern sounding notions of reincarnation with Jesus, had an ascetic monk/priesthood of “enlightened ones”, were remarkably tolerant of human frailty, though the Inquisition was thorough in it’s destruction of reliable self reports.

          Greek Orthodox thought seems to me heavily influenced by classical Greek philosophy, which may be linked to “Buddhist” theology through now lost Persian/Zorioastrian traditions, subsumed by the “lizard eaters”, the Arabs in the 8th century.

          Romania. What part?

          • Spartacus

            If by part you mean geographical location – Bucuresti .

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Just watched Ceausescu’s last speech.

            The revolution was televised.

  • He first came to national attention in a surprising way. He had immersed himself in the case of Silas Rogers, a black man convicted of killing a policeman. He found inconsistencies in the trial transcript, hunted down witnesses the defense had overlooked, and became convinced Rogers was innocent. He started a campaign for Rogers that convinced the governor to pardon him in 1953, earning Kilpatrick national praise and the accolades of the black press. Kilpatrick was furious when Rogers later raped a woman and went back to prison. “Sometimes you have to learn lessons the hard way,” he wrote.

    This is the way it goes with a lot of “innocent” blacks. They may be innocent of a given crime they’re charged with and convicted of, but they’re not innocent people overall.

    The Coordinating Committee’s work, including ads in newspapers all over the country, probably contributed to George Wallace’s successes in the Democratic presidential primaries in states such as Wisconsin, Maryland, and Illinois, but Kilpatrick had nothing but disdain for the Alabaman. “We need thinking men and God sends us George Wallace!” he wrote. “It’s enough to make a man lose his religion.” He thought Wallace was “a vainglorious young blockhead,” and preferred the smoother Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a dues-paying member of the NAACP who favored integration, but thought the federal government had no right to make it happen.

    Except George Wallace was every bit the smooth thinking intellectual man when he needed to be; he could debate several left wing law professors at a time and win. But Wallace was also smart enough to know not to be intellectual when campaigning in front of regular people; Wallace knew, in his own words, that he had to “put the crumbs down to where the ducks can get to them.” Speak to average people and their direct concerns in plain English.

    Even though it was mainly because of bad timing after the JFK assassination, remember that Barry Goldwater lost a Presidential election and lost it badly. If George Wallace was the Democrat nominee in 1972, if Arthur Bremer’s bullet would have missed, I think he could have actually won easily.

    It was in this same year, 1964, when everything he had worked for had crumbled, that Kilpatrick got an opportunity that changed his life. The Long Island newspaper Newsday offered him a column with a promise of syndication. As he saw it, his role was “to present to a national audience the reasoned and calm point of view of a conservative white Southerner,” but that meant toning down anything about race. Instead, he blasted welfare and the Great Society.

    That was largely similar to Strom Thurmond’s career track. He changed parties in 1964, but by 1968, he was fully absorbed into the Republican establishment, forgot all about race, and was able to swing the two Carolinas for Nixon instead of Wallace, screwing up Wallace’s goal of deadlocking the EC. Twenty years prior, Thurmond was tyring to do the same thing, deadlock the EC.

    One thing he never backed down on was opposition to race preferences and to school busing. He liked to claim that he was now race blind whereas his opponents were still race-conscious troglodytes.

    That’s an argument that will never impress the left. Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg wrote in a Supreme Court opinion that there can be no such thing as true racial blindness/color blindness in public policy. Her reasoning is a bit long, but it boils down to this: Real visual blindness is still a state of vision, just the lack of it. Likewise, colorblindness on race policy is still racial thinking, just the attempt to ignore it. In the long run, she’s right: Color blind race policies will almost always lead to one of two things: Either rampant affirmative action, to prove you don’t consider race, even though you are, or blacks and Hispanics being disparately impacted, which means the civil rights vultures will squak and the DOJ will file disparate impact lawsuits.

    What are those of us who prefer the early James Kilpatrick to make of his career?

    I make of it that he, as Willmot Robertson would have put it, was nothing but a trucker and a pussyfooter combined. There are many of those.

    What is the moral of this story? Jack Ryan above hinted at it, but I’ll say it in more direct terms: In the long run, trying to solve racial problems with aracial paradigms (libertarian or otherwise) will get us nowhere, and usually leave us worse off than where and how we started. Not only that, more often than not, campaigning aracially to solve racial problems while trying to be politically correct and deny race is a political loser, which is the opposite of political winner.

  • Spartacus

    “When Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968 he astonished his old
    friends when he wrote that King “was the bravest man I ever knew in
    public life. . . . To watch one of his marches was to sense the awesome
    power of strong character combined with high purpose.”


    You should’ve seen him f****** for God, I bet he was even more “purposeful” .

    • Glickstein44

      You must be referring to the night before he was shot when he shouted to the heavens,”Tonight i am not a N word but tonight i am a White man!!”….while sodomizing a White prostitute in his hotel room and beating another White prostitute…his side kick at the time,ralph Abernathy told of a homo episode as well in his book As The Walls Came Tumbling Down in which he related that MLK once had said to him,”Come over here so i can **** ur big black ****.

      • Spartacus

        Yes, that was what I was referring to .

      • Whitetrashgang

        Maybe they should make a statue of MLK sucking that bbd, I would donate money for that.

  • Puggg

    This Kilpatrick talked big, but stuck his thumb in the air, saw which way the wind was blowing, and mostly went with it. The only good news about this is that if we can ever get the wind blowing back in our direction, there will be millions and millions of people who will suddenly start agreeing with us.

    • JohnEngelman

      It is easy to convince the already convinced. The difficult but necessary task is to persuade the yet to be persuaded.

      • Keep Honkin I’m Reloading

        For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.

        For those who do not, no explanation is possible.

        • JohnEngelman

          The civil rights legislation was forced on whites with extensive experience with blacks by whites with little experience. Segregationists needed to convince white racial moderates outside of the South that when blacks are in the majority, or close to it, they frequently are dangerous. They could not do that by responding violently to peaceful civil rights demonstrators.

          In addition to being a great orator Martin Luther King was skilled at bringing out the worst in his enemies. That is why he won, and why the civil rights legislation was passed into law. It did not have to happen that way, but the segregationists were their own worst enemies. They behaved like bar room bullies while Dr. King projected the image of a humble man of God who was too good of a Christian to hate them.

          Segregationist mobs convinced whites outside of the South that blacks in the South were innocent victims of irrational color prejudice.

          Meanwhile men like James J. Kilpatrick presented Constitutional arguments that were only convincing to those who already felt the way he did. Arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment was not legitimately ratified was a non starter outside of the South.

  • candide


  • ravitchn

    In the 1960’s and ’70’s those who were in favor of segregation seemed to most Americans as bigots and diehards. But as black progress has effected only a few like Obama and as most blacks are little better today than before the ’60’s, perhaps worse off owing to drug culture and mass sexual immorality and family breakdown, many Americans do not yet dare to say out loud what they think: blacks are savages, dangerous, and a mortal threat to our national values; they have debased our culture and our cities. Americans some day, sooner than we think, will have to proclaim out loud what they think. Let’s hope they find a way to tackle these problems with legality and restraint, else we shall have race war and the prospect of fascist repression. We could use a man like James Kilpatrick again.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Yes. When Kilpatrick said, “Show me, blacks, that you are my equal.” in the 60’s, 70’s, he stood on arguably shaky ground. The integrationst could throw up all sorts of fancy Boasian theory and intellectual scaffolding, and the canard that “400 years of horrible injustice cannot be wiped out by a couple of decades of civil rights” held a lot more water than it does today, intellectually.

      10 years, 20 years, 30, 40, 50, 60… How long does this take to kick in? 400 years? Really? How you know that? I mean…if even some real progress were being made to “close the achievement gap” beyond tokenism and affirmative action whitewashing…I might have stayed there myself…

      But it’s not. Nothing significant predicted by socialist science regarding racial questions has born out as true. Nothing. No matter how much we spend to artificially prop this inherently flawed set of assumptions and theory up the fact remains that…

      Were we to cease all affirmative action tomorrow, institute total meritocracy in civil service and cease governmental meddling in the internal hiring practices of business, educate our people in a truly “colorblind” manor…

      We would quickly find ourselves in a society that very closely resembled that of the pre-civil rights era, and somewhere in the back of their heads almost EVERYBODY has to know this. I think this is precisely what makes the defenders of this warped assumption so very vicious and intolerant of the realist.

      Our house of cards would blow away at the first brisk zephyr.

      • Aditya Vivek Barot

        “Brisk zephyr.” Love it!

    • 1gravity

      And don’t forget venereal disease, and HIV.

  • exLibtard

    He was disgusted when the Associated Press refused to cover a story about a gang of blacks who had raped a white woman.

    I guess somethings never change.

  • Funruffian

    “Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne Division, and Faubus backed down. This was an enormous shock to Kilpatrick, who never expected Eisenhower to send troops, and it doomed interposition. “It looks mostly as if Reconstruction days are here again,” he wrote. He blasted Eisenhower as a tyrant, but that did not resegregate the schools”

    So we have Ike to blame for enforcing integration on public schools. The 1950’s were not great due to Eisenhower; they were great because we had segregation and a predominantly White workforce. We also had wholesome entertainment and TV programs. Eisenhower was just lucky to be President for 2 consecutive terms.

    • ravitchn


    • joesolargenius

      Ike had to back Federal Law ,he had no choice if he wished to survive in the Political Arena.

      • Executive discretion.

      • Sick of it

        Actually, the freedom of association is a part of the Bill of Rights. No congressional law has authority greater than a constitutional amendment.

      • IstvanIN

        He was President and a retired General there was no place to go after that than retirement.

        • joesolargenius

          That may be true but he was the leader of a military force that consisted of Americans of all races and could not seem to be discriminatory, plus he still has to enforce Federal Law .

    • Sick of it

      He was the same hypocrite who warned people about the military industrial complex while doing everything they wanted. I would not be surprised if he were involved in Patton’s death too.

      • Jesse James

        The theories that the automobile accident that killed Patton was actually an assassination are very interesting. Like the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, if they are true then the country we live in is a really different place than I once imagined it to be. I have come to consider the fire bombing of non-industrial non-military cities in Germany at the end of the war and the deliberate culling through exposure and malnutrition of thousands of German soldiers in POW “camps” to be genocidal war crimes. If communist agents in the Roosevelt administration AND the US military cooperated to murder both one of our most famous Generals and deliberately starve Germans to death then perhaps there is more truth to the Nazi war propaganda than most historians are willing to admit. Regardless of how the two world wars came about it is very clear at this point in history that the results were a disaster for white European civilization.

        • Sick of it

          Read about the purported starvation of German civilians during and after both world wars. Connect with British concentration camps in South Africa during the earlier Boer War (I’ve seen the pictures and they horrify me).

          • Jesse James

            Sick, recently I came into possession of a small “Special Orders for American-German Relations” card issued to my Uncle Jack during the last months of the war in Europe (signed by Lieutenant General C. H. Lee) that points towards the origins of some of the anti-white bias exhibited by our government. I am sure the government division of whites into enemy/friend categories goes back at least to the American Civil War.

            Although I understand some need to instruct soldiers occupying enemy areas before the final defeat of their armed forces, still I found some of the reasoning and wording of the special orders to be disturbing. Here are a few excerpts:

            “As a member of the greatest combat force in history, you are destroying the visible products of Nazism. But we must do more. We must also destroy its very roots.”

            “We Americans have a kindly feeling in our hearts for other people, for we, perhaps more than any other nation, believe in the inherent decency of man. Now you must be required to exclude a nation which once was a friend – Germany- and to bar, not just the soldier you have been fighting or the proven Nazi, but all Germans – men, women and children. That will be difficult, for it seems contrary to Allied ideas of fair play. But you MUST do it, for greater issues are at stake…”

            “The Germans have a lesson to learn. They must learn it well. Each of us must teach them.”

            “Special Order #2. Never to trust Germans, collectively or Individually.”

            “Special Order #3. To defeat German efforts to poison my thoughts or influence my attitude. b. You may expect all manner or approach- conversations to be overheard, underground publications to be found; there will be appeals to generosity and fair play; to pity for “victims of devastation;” to racial and cultural similarities; and to sympathy for an allegedly oppressed people.”

            “Special Order #6. Never to associate with Germans. c. American soldiers must not associate with Germans. Specifically it is not permissible to shake hands with them, to visit their homes, to exchange gifts with them, to engage in games or sports with them, to attend their dances or social events, or to accompany them on the street or elsewhere. Particularly, avoid all discussion or argument with them. Give the Germans no chance to trick you into relaxing your guard.”

            Anyway those are some examples of what is contained in the Special Orders. Perhaps it is not sinister, after all we were trying to defeat Nazism and grind it out of existence but I see in some of this wording how persecution of one group of whites – justified or not- can grow into persecution of all whites. If you could read the whole document it wouldn’t be hard to imagine our current Department of Homeland Security issuing some such thing the next time they want to shut down an American city.

            You may think that I am being overly sensitive but many soldiers at the time reported incidents of cruelty and abuse of German prisoners and civilians that they felt were war crimes. As an American southerner I have felt the effects myself of demonization and dehumanizing by the government and the media of a cultural group of whites.

            PS: As to those of you that might fling accusations of pro-Nazi sympathies at me go screw yourself. One of my uncles is buried over there in Europe KIA during the fighting in France, both of my Grandfathers and several of their brothers served in the ETO fighting the Nazis. One of my grandfathers was captured outside of Metz and had his health ruined while being held prisoner-that side of my family were recent immigrants from Czechoslovakia so we are part Slavic and thus to many of the Germans of that era considered sub-human (Untermenschion). Despite knowing that I still find that our treatment of the German people during and after the war hard to excuse.

          • Sick of it

            Can you scan that card and upload pictures on here?

          • Jesse James

            My printer/scanner has been wonkey this week but I will try and get the document scanned. My mother was just cleaning out some things at my grandparents and she knew I was interested in our family military history so she passed it along. I really want to share it because it points to an area that is vastly under talked about and that is to what extent anti-Nazi efforts during and after WWII have morphed into anti-right , anti-western and anti-white government activism. It is starting to appear to me that the way entire western European population drifted leftwards in the post-war years is directly because of American anti-Nazi efforts that in essence through the baby of right-wing conservative and traditionalist thought out with the Nazi bathwater. We prevented the European right from teaching or holding government positions and in some cases hindered historical research and publication that would have provided a more balanced and healthy European intellectual framework.

          • Sick of it

            As the Venona Project clearly showed, our government was infested with Communists during that time period. Nazi Germany was just a convenient scapegoat for what was going to be suppressed anyway.

          • David Ashton

            Even George Kennan admitted the communist infiltration of US government years before the war.

          • JohnEngelman

            What does that mean? Were members of the American Communist Party passing classified information to the Soviet Union? If not, what was the problem?

            Members of Communist parties were civil servants in democratic governments in Western Europe. They still are. That was never considered to be a problem.

          • David Ashton

            1. There was an underground CP & fellow-travellers.
            2. Some were passing information to the USSR and/or influencing US policy in other ways.
            3. Communists in European civil services were a problem, less so today with the disappearance of the Soviet regime.

            I have given you detailed references before which will document the above in massive and meticulous detail. Your response to this proves your red slip is showing.

          • JohnEngelman

            What percentage of Communist Party members were passing classified information to the Soviet Union? Can you document that?

            If more Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers had been influencing American foreign policy the War in Vietnam and the Iranian Revolution would have been less likely.

            During the McCarthy Era “Communists in the government” were blamed for the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and the Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War.

            However, the Soviet Army occupied Eastern Europe during the end of the Second World War, and did so as an ally the United States needed to defeat Germany. 80 percent of German soldiers killed during the War were killed by the Soviet Army.

            The Communist Chinese won their civil war with the Nationalists because they fought more skillfully, and because more of the Chinese people supported them.

            In other words, it had nothing to do with “Communists in the government.”

          • David Ashton

            Can I document the exact percentage of (registered open) CPUSA members who passed classified information the Soviet Union? Can anyone document the exact percentage of Muslims on the planet who have engaged in terrorism, or even the exact percentage of Afro-Americans who have engaged in criminal violence of the sort that knocked some reality into leftist heads? How long is a piece of string?

            I am not a statistician, even in areas where there is abundant data, but still expert disagreement, such as the numbers of German (Rudiger Overmans) or especially Russian (John Mosier) wartime losses. Some previously accepted grand totals of death-rates in both Soviet and Nazi concentration-camps have been numerically reduced, partly as a result of the release of Moscow archives. And it is this latter source that has corroborated earlier information about the role of communists in both military espionage and policy formation. Of course, all those with access to classified data were a small number, and the communists or fellow-travellers were a minority among them, and in contrast to the total CP membership, but that is not the crucial point.

            Communist members of the Comintern were familiar with its Leninist conspiratorial techniques and Stalinist party discipline, front creation and covert work. One good summary of the situation from the1920s to the Vietnam war appears at the beginning of H. Klehr, J. E. Haynes & F. I. Firsov, “The Secret World of American Communism” (Yale UP 1995). Read it for yourself.

          • JohnEngelman

            The only Communist Party members I am aware of who passed classified information to the Soviet Union were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. There may have been others. I invite anyone to name them.

            The information Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg gave the Soviets shortened the amount of time the Soviets needed to develop an atomic bomb, but the Soviets would have developed one anyway.

            Most Americans who passed classified information to the Soviets did so for financial reasons, or they were angry about being passed over for promotion.

            A clever American spy, even if motivated by Communist sympathies, would not expose himself by joining the American Communist Party. He would cover himself by being active in the Republican Party, instead.

            As far as “Leninist conspiratorial techniques and Stalinist party discipline, front creation and covert work,” are concerned, you seem to have more confidence in the power of the American Communist Party than I do. The Communist Party members I have known were infinitely charming, but rather silly. They had difficulty starting meetings on time. They did not make me fear for the safety of our democratic institutions.

            By expressing their opinions members of the CPUSA contributed to the democratic process, as do those of us who post here, as well as those who write articles that are posted here. Democracy works best when the voters are exposed to diverse points of view.

          • David Ashton

            You’ve said all this before, at least twice, totally impervious to factual correction or common-sense comment.

            The names of many others than “Mr & Mrs” Rosenberg are listed in several books I have recommended that you should bother to read instead of frankly making a fool of yourself with pompous, ignorant and naive repetitions.

          • JohnEngelman

            Each of us repeats arguments we have posted before. However, I do not insult you.

            What does bother me about your attitude is what seems to be your implication that members of the American Communist Party and Communist sympathizers should not be allowed to be politically active, and to work for the government.

            Those who complain about the restrictions of political correctness, as I do, should in my opinion not advocate similar restrictions on those with whom we disagree.

          • David Ashton

            My previous reply now seems to have reappeared immediately below this.

            The problem with communists has been (1) their underground operations in support of foreign power, (2) their above-ground determined use of propaganda, indoctrination and falsehood to influence opinion, policy, criminal activity and impressionable young minds. These two factors have sometimes been orchestrated together.

            On Hollywood, the evidence produced by John T. Flynn and more recently Ronald Radosh, among others, are worth perusal.

            During the “cold war” mistakes on the part of western governments have resulted from incompetence, including an inadequate appreciation of Soviet and Maoist foreign policy. In some cases, communist agents themselves were still manipulating foolish or dangerous actions behind the scenes, such as Philby’s proven role in the Albanian liberation fiasco, and possibly the Bay of Pigs disaster.

          • JohnEngelman

            The “mistakes” I am thinking about were really acts of aggression by the United States. I am calling them mistakes with the hope that they were well intended, but the results were unfortunate.

            In 1953 the CIA helped MI6 orchestrate a coup against the democratic government of Iran and establish the Shah as dictator. The Shah was never a popular dictator. When he was overthrown in 1979 the Iranians hated us. We have been having trouble with them ever since.

            In 1954 the CIA orchestrated a coup that overthrew a left leaning democracy in Guatemala and created a right wing dictatorship. The eventual outcome of that was a civil war that killed several hundred thousand Guatemalan peasants.

            In 1954 the United States refused to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954. That forbade the entry of foreign troops to Vietnam and scheduled an election to be held to unify Vietnam in July 1956. In his memoirs President Eisenhower admitted that his advisers told him that as many as 80 percent of the Vietnamese would have voted for Ho Chi Minh.

            The eventual outcome of that was of course the War in Vietnam.

            In July 3, 1979, which is to say before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, President Carter signed a directive for secret aid to opponents of the left leaning government in Afghanistan.

            The Soviets foolishly took the bait, and invaded Afghanistan to help that government. Thus began a mess that contributed to 9/11 and a continuing American occupation of Afghanistan.

            If the United States State Department had really been “infiltrated by Communists,” and if “Communists” had influenced American public opinion it may have been impossible for the U.S. government to do any of that.

            I put “Communists” in quotes, because the word has been used carelessly. Some of President Obama’s opponents call him a “Communist” when they are not calling him a “Muslim.”

          • David Ashton

            Except for the Guatemala case, and the popularity of Ho Chi Minh, I am inclined to agree with you about the mistakes. However, not only communists do bad or silly things.
            I hope this reply, however trivial, does appear. Other comments from me have not, though they are on the Disqus archive under my name.

          • JohnEngelman

            “I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader.”

            Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372

          • David Ashton

            Assuming this reply itself appears, I do not intend to comment further on this subject for two simple reasons only: (1) my replies do not always appear on screen after I have posted them, and (2) this private debate, which you began, is straying from the main theme of the thread.

          • David Ashton

            My further reply to this does not appear on this thread at the present search at noon GMT August 29. You may be able to find it on the Disqus archive under my name. It referred, for instance, to some (not all) listed atom spies. Instead, I shall quote here from the biography of one of the ablest Soviet agents, Kim Philby: “It was also the era of Hiss, Coplon, Fuchs, Gold, Greenglass and the brave Rosenbergs – not to mention others who are still nameless” (“My Silent War” [NY 2002] p.150).

            Very different from your charming “above ground” CP rank-and-file old friends, who not only wouldn’t hurt a fly but probably couldn’t tell the difference between a fly and a wasp.

            I also repeated my support for free speech.

          • JohnEngelman

            On a number of occasions I have stated that Communist espionage was a legitimate concern, but Communist subversion was not.

            There never was the remotest chance that Marxist Leninists would overthrow the U.S. government, and set up a Communist dictatorship.

            Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers should not have had access to classified information. They certainly should not have had access to information about atomic bomb research.

            Nevertheless, I see no legitimate reason to keep them from most government employment, teaching, employment in the news media, television, and Hollywood.

            They had every right to influence public opinion and public policy. If they had been more successful, some of the mistakes the United States made during the Cold War would not have been made.

          • Aditya Vivek Barot

            Yes, please; I would love to see that card.

            Allied atrocities against Germany are so well-documented that even the Military Channel ran a special on them. However, they focused on Soviet atrocities, not American crimes.

            I am convinced that our behavior vis-a-vis post-war Germany was abominable, though nowhere near as sickening as Soviet rapine of Germany.

            This is a story that needs to be told. The Second World War has become a religious myth. It needs to be shattered. Drop by drop, the truth needs to permeate the thick skulls of “the masses” and they need to understand that what happened in abroad, can happen at home.

            Knowledge is power. If whites can be enlightened about our utterly hypocritical and sickening behavior in Europe, then they will begin to understand that the USG is, fundamentally, like the Soviet Union; an enemy of the people. This won’t happen overnight, but it can over a generation, especially if we provide documentary proof like the card you referenced.

          • Sick of it

            From what I’ve read, many German women and even children had to prostitute themselves [to Allied soldiers] after the war to obtain food. That’s pretty damning.

          • gemjunior

            Disgusting. You must know who was at the back of that? Who already had full control of the US government? What I simply cannot understand is how German-Americans felt about this – something like 50% of the country’s people had German roots. It’s very sad that white people have this mental block or disease – altruism mixed with self-criticism.

          • Jesse James

            If I remember correctly roughly 1/3 of the American population at the start of WWII had German ancestry or were actual German immigrants. Perhaps that explains the machinations of the Red Roosevelt regime to get us involved in the war against the prevailing public desire to not become involved in another European civil war by using and manipulating us into war with the Japanese. I am not excusing or forgetting Pearl Harbor but revisionist scholarship has clearly exposed the fact that Roosevelt manipulated the Japanese into attacking and that the highest levels of the Washington establishment knew of the attack in advance and deliberately failed to inform Admiral Kimmel (CinC Pacific Fleet) and General Short (Army commander responsible for the defense of Oahu). I think that there was within the ranks considerable sympathy for the German people at least to the extent that they were recognized as human beings. It was this latent sympathy that I think caused the worst aspects of the Morganthau plan to be discarded or ameliorated.

          • Sick of it

            Considering that so many of them were foreigners who had popped off the boat rather recently, it’s even more amazing that they were wholeheartedly accepted as our new masters.

    • JohnEngelman

      Strong labor unions and a high top tax rate helped.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    This is a wonderful summary of the “Civil Rights” era framed, as it is, by the public life of a one-time intellectual giant who succumbed to the triple lures of elite acceptance, fame and money.

    Having lived through and followed the events above described, I recognize almost all the characters covered in Jared Taylor’s review of James J. Kilpatrick: Salesman for Segregation.

    It’s a journey of countless might-have-beens, myriad what-ifs that and legions of tragic follies now culminating in our present predicament.

    Bravo, Jared.

  • joesolargenius

    Kilpatrick wrote what the majority wanted to read and that is how he made his living , no different than any liberal or conservative talk show host nowadays.He was a literary chef serving up what appealed to the appetites of his customers , a conservative when it was more popular to serve that type of intellectual cuisine and then a liberal when the popular taste changed. He was but a fore runner of the Chris Matthews and Sean Hannitys of today !

  • Galt

    Dear Jared Taylor,

    Come home white man.

  • IKantunderstand

    Mr. Taylor, I detect a note of, I don’t know, resentment? I’m going with that, reluctantly. Mr. Kilpatrick, was simply, a sellout. He did not change his views. I frankly, have never heard of a person, who started out as a racist, and then had so many incredibly positive contacts with Blacks, and so completely overwhelmed by their extraordinary mental prowess, that they did a one eighty on their assessment of Blacks. Has never happened, never will. And, anyone who claims that happened, is more than a liar, he’s a damned liar. Mr. Kilpatrick, was, simply, a sellout. He sold out himself, his family, and his race. No matter how smart he was, he was nothing but a sellout race traitor. Mr. Taylor, if you would change your opinion on race at this point in time, you would be feted and wealthy, by speaking engagements alone. I am hoping that the note of resentment I detected was to someone who was a sellout, made loads of money doing so, and it pees you off that you are incapable of doing the same thing. It is not easy to be an honorable man. Especially now, in the state of decay within which we live. They say, that the movies that H’wood makes, is a way to prepare the public of things to come. Please tell me, you are not doing the same thing here.

  • ShermanTMcCoy

    This article comes as a deep disappointment to me, as Mr. Kilpatrick was one of my heroes in my younger days. We corresponded a few times about several of his columns, and, busy as he was, he never failed to write me back. And, as the man says, he sure could write.

    There are surreptitious means to pursue white goals via traditional conservative approaches and they should be used. Opposing welfare is a good way to reduce third-world immigration and to separate the blacks into groups that will either find work and behave themselves, or will turn into rioting mobs which could then be put down. Opposing affirmative action on the basis of it being discriminatory also seems to be a no-brainer. As the blacks cannot (for the most part) achieve high level jobs with the income they command, the numbers of white women available to them would fall.

    Now, if that had been what Mr. Kilpatrick was doing, I would approve of his crypto-segregationalism. But, sad as it makes me to have to admit it, his fawning over MLK leads me to believe that he sold out.

    • Bardon Kaldian

      Looks like you interpreted his behavior as tactical concessions in service of a completely different strategy. However, it turns out he didn’t have a strategy at all: he was- or has become- just a self-centered opportunist. No principles, only affluence & influence (within well defined boundaries).

      • ShermanTMcCoy

        Sadly, i believe you to be correct.

  • JohnEngelman

    The official story is that integration has been successful, but for the persistence of “systemic racism” that prevents blacks from achieving their true potential.

    Those who challenge what has become the dogma of innate racial equality are not refuted rationally. They are shouted down. If possible, their careers are destroyed.

    When I read arguments against racial integration that were presented before 1964 I am almost startled to learn that back then it was safe to publicly express facts that now can only be suggested furtively.

    James J. Kilpatrick did not need to feign an epiphany on racial matters. He could have pointed to the black ghetto riots that happened from 1964 to 1968 and the more enduring increase in black social pathology as the vindication of his earlier apprehensions.

    He could have championed Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and others when they risked their careers by telling the hard truths about innate individual and racial differences in intelligence.

    There would have been an audience for that, because the truth has always been obvious to anyone with the courage to examine it.

  • Stentorian_Commentator

    It’s unfortunate that Kilpatrick ultimately sold out, but reading his earlier writings reminds me of one of the major revelations I have had over the past few years. In the non-southern faux morality plays that discuss the Civil Wrongs Movement, there is sometimes a southern character who pipes up and says something like, you folks just don’t understand the situation. Derisive scoffing follows, but no real argument. However, it turns out that non-southerners really did not understand the situation, and that southerner was right.

  • I have read though this article even though I as British person have no idea who this man is or, for that matter, know all the reference points, schools and events peppered through the history of this individual and the United States.

    However, the general message left from it is that by continually side-stepping the real issues in order to play by the rules and morals of the opposing team, causes nothing but capitulation and being consumed with the will of your opponents.

    Although it may not be the exactly the same phenomena, this is one reason why I have tended to scorn those within British circles who claim to want to “box clever” (as they put it) by trying to ‘play the system’ and side-step issues, whether it be the Conservative party in the 60’s and 70’s, or UKIP today.

    All that happens is loss, and being forced to take up the positions of your opponents, albeit more “slowly” than the opponents would have wished for things to be done. You paint yourself into a corner – and like with UKIP or the Conservatives, once all your arguments are based on things like “jobs” or “economy” or “welfare” – when those elements of your argument are kicked away, you are left with nothing solid underpinning the opposition views that was once touted to “box clever” and get things done by the side-door.

    It also seems to express that the “worse is better” attitude also prevailed with this man featured in the article, where he thought the rest of America would “wake up” and eventually come to see what it is “really like”. Again, it did not happen. All that happened was further cause for capitulation and retreat.

    In this country, things like the veil are often hot topics with both nationalists and some media pundits and newspaper writers. The constant idea that “we need to ban the burkha” or expect these people to “do as the Romans do when in Rome” is the same kind of attitude of capitulation.

    It becomes the piece of cloth that matters, not the racial and religious problem. Banning the burkha, forcing the aliens to “be more like us” is, in my view, extremely counter-productive to our goals. It will make it harder to stake a claim and a case for our survival, not easier.

    But arguing over pieces of cloth, or “equal rights for whites” (in our country, which is an embarrassment and capitulation all of its own!) and all the other garbage like that is far easier to do than be an out and out racially conscious speaker or organisation.

    It is “populist” with great sections of the public, more easier to navigate around – but it never leads to anything other than continued loss and an irrelevancy of our deeper arguments.

    • JohnEngelman

      It is “populist” with great sections of the public, more easier to navigate around – but it never leads to anything other than continued loss and an irrelevancy of our deeper arguments.

      – British Activism

      It may be that your “deeper arguments” are deeply unpopular with the majority.

    • It becomes the piece of cloth that matters, not the racial and religious problem. Banning the burkha, forcing the aliens to “be more like us” is, in my view, extremely counter-productive to our goals. It will make it harder to stake a claim and a case for our survival, not easier.

      This is another argument that the left isn’t buying.

      Ban the burqua but leave the Muslims? Once they win the day demographically, the burqua will return. You’ll be surprised at the number of big American cities that have “official English” ordinances yet you won’t hear a word of English when you actually travel through those cities.

    • “It may be that your “deeper arguments” are deeply unpopular with the majority.”

      And where might they have got those ideas from, and by whom might this web of perceived “unpopularity” been woven?

      It is certainly the case in Britain and, I would suspect, America, before the 1940s or 1950s, that racial consciousness, racial pride (self worth) and notions of racial separatism was not only the normality, but the generally expected viewpoint to take.

      Something in the meantime has changed this consciousness and order of society, through propaganda and other tools.

      One of those tools is not ever getting to hear solid and articulate counter-positions to where things are heading, in favour of having such language denied and removed from the public sphere for the sake of expediency, “boxing clever” and playing by the very rules those “enemy” combatants have gradually established in society.

      However, I am not prepared to debate with you John. I have been there before and I am not doing it again, for it is a complete and utter waste of my time and everybody else’s here.

      • JohnEngelman

        In countries where open political debate is allowed those who find themselves in a dwindling minority have no right to complain when public opinion shifts against them. They lost the debate through no one’s fault but their own.

    • Ernest

      “However, the general message left from it is that by continually side-stepping the real issues in order to play by the rules and morals of the opposing team, causes nothing but capitulation and being consumed with the will of your opponents.”

      Well put and that is exactly what is wrong with the immigration issue in this nation. It is a not a matter of legal vs illegal immigration it is a matter of race and culture.

  • JohnEngelman

    If the only innate difference between blacks and whites was average intelligence, school integration could have been managed with different ability levels. Whites and Asians would dominate the top level. Blacks and Hispanics would dominate the bottom level. The middle ability level would be fairly evenly mixed. Some blacks and Hispanics would be in the top level. Some whites and Asians would be in the bottom level.

    The problem is that when blacks are in the majority, they are usually dangerous. In many areas of the South and in Northern cities they are in the majority. Integrated schools there are not safe for whites and Asians. White liberals know that, and rarely send their children to predominantly black public schools there. Nevertheless, they hypocritically maintain in public that school integration is a good idea, and make it dangerous to disagree.

    • Paul

      9 likes for this nonsense?

      Blacks are not usually dangerous when they are in the majority. They are usually dangerous. period.

      Look at Australia. A miniscule number of African blacks. In fact in Tamworth they had only 12. The mayor openly stated they need no more as most of them had been before the courts charged with everything from shoplifting to murder.

      • JohnEngelman

        Blacks were about five percent of the junior and senior high school I attended. They were safe from us. We were safe from them.

  • Aditya Vivek Barot

    I’m the course of reading Spengler’s “The Hour of Decision” where he discusses he vertical and horizontal racial revolution. Specifically, he posits that the real revolution is that of the infirm, the dissolute, the envious, against the nobler castes, against the producers and the gifted. That this new rabble is determined to level society and degrade it to their satisfaction. He posits that the Vanguard of the “revolution from below” are whites who are enlisting the dregs of humanity and the colored races to destroy their fellow-whites.

    Mr. Taylor’s analysis of Kilpatrick’s “evolution” proves that Spengler is the greatest observer of the Human Condition and that his Cassandra-like vision warned us. And as in the myth, so in real life.

  • Jacobite2

    Although the National Review opposed the Civil Rights Acts, it wasn’r so much later that WFB got suckered by another sociopath. Jack Henry Abbott. WFB and a bunch of other Noo Yawkers got him released from prison. How long before he murdered a waiter in public? Noo Yawk is not just non-American; not just un-American; it’s anti-American. No one living there can fail to pick up the anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-moral, anti-normal ethos of that city. I go farther and say nobody living in the Bos-Wash corridor should ever be trusted — on any issue. Until we are able to level the entire NE US, we have to keep an eye out for the natives. Only serious men should have leadership positions in any society. That’s why most of our Presidents before Wilson were military veterans. Because a serious man is one who can look you in the eye, and calmly blow your head off. It just might be that if Kilpatrick had been able to fight in WW II he wouldn’t have been bothered that some panty-waist Libs in NYC disagreed with his honest beliefs.

    • gemjunior

      “I go farther and say nobody living in the Bos-Wash corridor should ever be trusted — on any issue. ”
      NY is full of stupid libs and other dregs but that is going too far. You can’t trust anyone on any issue? That’s a stupid statement. I’m living there (not for long) and I’m probably more Christian, more pro-white, more moral, more traditional than many people in the heartland. It would be really odd not to find one person in the NE US that couldn’t be trusted on any issue. Ridiculous.

      • Jacobite2

        When contemplating mass action, you have to apply blanket criteria. But, considering the omni-present social pressure to adopt far-Left values, the few semi-good people possibly still living there just don’t matter. God didn’t let the potential presence of one good man stop Him from levelling Sodom and Gomorrah, and the NE US is worse than they could’ve dreamt of. As the Bishop said: “Kill them all; God will know His own.”

    • NeanderthalDNA

      You got a down vote for dissin’ on New Jack City, lol.

      Well, one thing I gotta say. Whatever you think of Bloomberg, the Duke of New York, A number 1, he’s kept the crime down and to hell with what anybody thinks he’s out of line in his methods. All things considered the city has been well governed compared to other sinking cesspools, for quite some time now, in fact.

      The Duke’s lack of political party affiliation is interesting vis-a-vis the city’s relative success.

    • TheAntidote

      You are very confused about several things but especially confused about sociopaths; which I find interesting, as you yourself are quite sociopathic, so should understand the criminally insane better.

      Jack Henry Abbot had nothing to do with William F. Buckley. Jack Henry Abbot, author of ‘In the Belly of the Beast’, was championed for release and rehabilitation by Norman Mailer in 1982(?).
      Edgar Smith was the psychopath who communicated with William F. Buckley and eventually won a re-trial.

      • Jacobite2

        You must be a very successful psychiatrist. I assumed that sociopaths would be incapable of understanding other people, lacking any empathy, but I’m not a mental health professional. So I stand corrected there. I’m hazy on the Jack Henry Abbott story. So, sue me.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    OK, that was a lot and very thick. Not a criticism, but I’ll have to go over it when I have a little more time.

    One thing I see is that the big American boom of 1945 – 1970, often seen as the economic yardstick we must live up to by “left” and “right”, was in fact a very unnatural phenomenon and efforts to grow our economy at such a rate are, sans similar conditions, doomed to failure. As a result of WW2 we had no real competitors outside the Soviets, who were not really economic competition. This has nothing to do with race, of course, but has contributed to a general discontent as well, I would say, to over-extension of credit rather than increase in real income in order to “grow” the economy at 1950’s 1960’s rates when such was likely…

    Impossible. At least impossible without creating a fragile bubble-ponzi economy rather than a solid industrial-productive economy.

    The race thing? The biggest problem is that as we find ourselves increasingly competing with others we insist on dragging our own economy down by artificially empowering substandard individuals because of their race, not to mention the TRILLIONS spent to do so, much less the incalculable TRILLIONS wasted to incompetence and criminality.

    Race or more specifically our dreamy misapprehension of it, is the most poisonous “lead in our pipes” now, and most do not even recognize it.

  • Epiminondas

    Great piece, Jared. I remember Kilpatrick very well, and often asked myself some of those same questions. I did not realize what a firebrand he had been in his younger days. What a pity the media bought him off…for that is what they assuredly did.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    Oh sure. The veracity of the difference is precisely what makes it so hard to deal with. Also elicits extreme response on part of less intelligent groups and those whose ideology denies such, especially when they stake their daughters and sons, hence grandchildren, hence future viability of family line on such…

    This is why I have an anxiety attack from time to time when I consider the implications, historically.

    Unlike some of the negative nellies here, lol, I think our people not only will awaken, but are currently awakening in greater numbers than most suspect. The consequences for expressing this awakening are indeed formidable, hence a growing silent fury that is bound to explode at some point to the shock of all, including to us as we explode. It will be like something from that movie, “V”, though an ideological obverse…

    This, whatever specific form it takes, induces an anxiety attack when I begin to consider the nature of how it will/might go down. My anxiety is s funny critter, however…when I’ve found myself in actual situations of danger, I get very calm, cease thinking so much, as opposed to the imagined and theoretical.

  • ViktorNN

    Libertarian arguments in favor of segregation ultimately run up against libertarian arguments for the rights of individuals to be treated equally before the law. Libertarianism is thus self-contradictory and was self-defeating when it came to tackling the issue of segregation vs. integration back in the 50s and 60s. As long as libertarianism was the conceptual basis of arguments in favor of segregation, segregation was doomed.

    The grounds for racial and ethnic separation are best based on identitarian arguments, for example, that distinct racial/ethnic peoples constitute a nation and have a right to self-determination. On the plus side, identitarian arguments avoid the problems libertarian arguments for segregation face, on the downside, arguing separation based on identity is a much more radical solution, involving a lot of social upheaval.

    But suppose at the moments of great racial upheaval and change in the U.S. someone was seriously, vigorously arguing for separation based on racial identity? Lincoln was supposedly in favor of it. What if a U.S. President or politician during the civil rights era advocated it and seriously pushed for it?

    Many of this country’s racial problems are based on people being unwilling to face the fact that bringing in non-whites has been a huge mistake, and make the hard decision that all these groups need to be re-separated. Our problems just get worse through laziness and inaction. Now we face literal extinction as a group.

    Over the next 100 or 200 years we white European Americans will either cease to be what we have been – biologically white – or we will re-assert our right to exist. The only way to do this is through identitatian argument. That is, whites will have to separate from the U.S. or kick non-whites out of the U.S. Either way, the basis of the U.S. as a “proposition nation” is not compatible with a healthy white majority. A healthy white majority nation in North America will have to be based on identity.

  • JohnEngelman

    In his book “The Emerging Republican Majority,” published in 1969, Kevin Phillips wrote that when the black population of a state is less than 10 percent it does not effect the voting behavior of whites. When it exceeds 10 percent whites become nervous. When it approaches 50 percent the control of those blacks becomes the most important political issue for whites.

    The civil rights movement did not threaten the safety of whites in most of the United States. Blacks only become physically dangerous when they approach a majority. The civil rights movement did not threaten affluent whites. They lived in safe, white neighborhoods, and could send their children to safe, white private schools.

    This is why it was easy for conservatives like James Kilpatrick and William Buckley to moderate their opposition to civil rights when it became expedient to do so. They could have pointed to the black ghetto riots that happened from 1964 to 1968, and the more lasting increase in black social pathology as confirmation of their early opposition. Instead, they concentrated on what was really important to them, which was skewing things ever more in favor of the well to do.

    Pat Buchanan is one of the few prominent, affluent conservatives who has shown integrity on this matter.

  • JohnEngelman

    Unfortunately stories like yours never got into the main stream media. The stories that were about white mobs opposing school integration and forced school busing.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    That is it. Association with “them”, in excessive numbers, takes OUR choices away in terms of how WE wish to order our societies successfully.

  • Glickstein44

    If Kilpatrick really did change,then God rest his erring soul.If he trimmed all the way to the grave,he forsook his obligations to the truth and his people.

    Exactly my sentiments when i think on how other White racialist itellectual historical writers will one day do a similiar article on you for preferring to ignore the root of the problem.

    • Antipodean WN

      Amen to that. My post along a similar vein, although more directly impolite to Mr Taylor, was deleted.

      • Glickstein44

        Sorry to hear that. Its more important to be truthful than to be nice. On the thread Catholic Church Rallying for Amnesty i have been deleted or the post removed at least 5 times.Post removed numerous time for writing that Henry Wolff wrote a exellent piece on censorship called Censorship American Style(dated 2 months ago)…I suggested that readers go to the article and read it and also read readers comments,specifically that of a poster calling himself Bobster, who had pasted an article i believe from Vdare on jewish lobbying groups who are the most influential influence for mass amnesty…much more so than the Catholic Church.Perhaps my post was removed because i made a statement coined from Henry Wolffs article,Censorship Amren Style…Frankly i am surprized to see my post on this thread is still there…perhaps Mr.Taylor will respond or some other staff member although i seriously doubt that even though they have a huge advantage over me in education and intellect. I am quite sure this post will dissappear quickly and pretty confident my first post on this thread will eventually dissapear as well.

        • Antipodean WN

          The way Amren treats people who mention the root cause, mirrors exactly the way the mainstream media handles those who take even a moderate race realist position – absolute censorship.

          In a way Taylor is more a hindrance than a help. He deflects our attention.

          • JohnEngelman

            Jared Taylor attracted me to this website with his essay, “The Color of Crime.”

          • Antipodean WN

            To Mr “Asiaphile geek who can’t get a white woman”:
            What is the point about harping on endlessly about the problems that non-whites bring, when there is no mention made of the tribe who is bringing in these non-whites? Sort of like those idiots who blame guns for the problem of gun violence (yes, guns do kill people), but not the people firing the guns.

  • JohnEngelman

    Likewise in 1960, he had a television debate with Martin Luther King. There appears to be no copy of the video on YouTube, but a transcript can be found here. Even the most ardent King supporters had to concede that Kilpatrick dominated King with legal arguments that made King’s moral arguments look like whining.

    – Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 23, 2013

    From the applause that followed Dr. King’s statements, it seemed to me that many in the audience preferred the Reverend’s moral arguments.

    Dr. Martin Luther King missed an opportunity to score a KO when he failed to point out that non violent civil disobedience was the only option open to Negroes in the South, because they were denied the right to vote.

    That denial, in flagrant violation of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, was a more egregious violation of the law than any committed by the sit in demonstrators.

    • John

      Sport, if you want to be a cheerleader for the civil rights movement, then kindly take your egalitarianism and pro MLK rhetoric somewhere it is likely to be appreciated. My family was living in Prince Edward County in 1958. My parents enrolled me in a private school for 1st grade because they weren’t certain public schools were going to open (not the one mentioned). I was fortunate then and subsequently in that I didn’t have to attend a “wholly” integrated school until I was a sophomore in HS. As luck would have it, I dodged the black bullet, one of the last generation of whites in America that can remember how is was and should be, not how it has become. Pity so many of my generation bought the whole liberal load of BS over integration lock, stock and barrel. If that hadn’t happened, the country would be much better off today. The picture speaks volumes on race and je suis paganisme is spot on analytically.

      • JohnEngelman

        On several occasions I have pointed out that integration works when blacks are in a small minority, but that they become dangerous when they approach the majority. This is true whether we are talking about schools, cities, or states.

        • Paul

          They become dangerous when they approach the majority?

          You are truly a halfwit.
          Let’s hope one of your close family members doesn’t have the misfortune to bump into one of these blacks who are less than the majority.

  • je suis paganisme

    The photo tells it all.
    The White child is eager, leaning forward, attentive.
    The black child is sullen and angry, with slack-jawed resentment.

    • JohnEngelman

      In the photograph I do not see a “sullen and angry” black child “with slack-jawed resentment.”

      What I do see in the photograph is the only way integration can work harmoniously. Blacks have to be in a small minority. When they are in the majority they are dangerous to non blacks and to each other. When they in the small minority they are safe from non blacks, and from other blacks.

      Responsible black parents – yes there are a few – want their children to go to predominantly white schools, because they know their children will not be knifed or shot there.

    • IstvanIN

      I noticed that immediately but couldn’t express in words the difference between the friendly girl and the nasty-faced black.

      • JohnEngelman

        What I see in the photographs is a black girl who is nervous about being surrounded by whites, and who hopes that they will like her.

        • je suis paganisme

          John, the facial expression of hope is more wide-eyed than that black child is expressing. Compare her eyes to those of the White child.
          Look at the upturned corners of the mouth of the White girl. That expresses friendliness. The corners of the black child’s mouth are downturned.
          The black child is holding something—-a notebook, perhaps, out in front of her, pointed at the White child. This indicates more than a defensive fear and protectiveness; it indicates potential agression. The White child is leaning forward in innocent welcoming anticipation.
          No. In animal terms, comparing these two to dogs, the black child is expressing the attitude of wary fear, anger . . . all the hairs on her back are standing up, her mouth is slack-jawed, ready to bite. Her eyes are fearful, suspicious.
          The White child, as a dog, would have her tail wagging.

          • JohnEngelman

            I think you are projecting your hostility onto the black girl.

          • je suis paganisme

            Don’t go there, John. Psychologyzing is avoiding the debate and saying that there is something wrong with me. Not that my opinion is wrong, but that there is something wrong with me.
            I could easily reply, “And you , my friend, have an unresolved Oedipus complex. I am a representative father figure to you, and you have a desire to kill me, or at least prove me wrong and take me down a few notches.”
            Solve nothing.

          • JohnEngelman

            Most Americans thought the photograph was cute and endearing. That is why it was popular.

    • Fredrik_H

      When I look at that I personally see a white person who’s ethnocentricity has been removed and think:”Oh, a black person! How new, diverse and exciting!” and a black that thinks:”Whaddya lookin at me fo honkey?”

  • Jesse James

    Yes that projected 4% of the global population in 2100 hits the nail on the head. That is probably an extinction level number for whites without the creation of a strong white ethno-state. So we have less than 87 years to get our act together – little more than a single life time. If we fail then all of our treasured distinctions and allegiances matter not at all: Christian, Pagan, Radical Traditionalist, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, Atheist, Worker, Capitalist, Progressive, National Socialist…all white all gone.

  • ImTellinYa

    We also need men like the early George Wallace. It may be that these people seem crude and unthinking, but they KNOW the truth from their hard personal experience. Until we can embrace the “unreconstructed racist” (as the cowardly, traitorous Left would have it), we will never be able to turn things around.

    I met a plumber in Georgia recently while he was working on my parents’ house. He had no problem at all telling the unvarnished truth about the Blacks and Mexicans that he was forced to employ. And this is a man who has a wildly successful business started by his great-grandfather. He understands that his business is imperiled by the Blacks and Mexicans who cannot, will not meet the standards of excellence he sets for himself.

    This blue collar hero used ALL of the forbidden words for third-world savages, and when he enumerated the problems he has with these people, he completely nailed it. The Blacks have massive self-esteem while being sullen, hostile and almost universally incompetent. And yes, they are as lazy as a fat dog lying in the sun.

    The Mexicans will work 20 hours a day if they can, but most of them drink all day, and they are firmly committed to the idea that almost good enough is the height of excellence. Their work is always suspect. They also constantly try to cheat on their hours, and have no ability to think ahead to future consequences.

    One of the problems that amused this White plumber the most, was that the Blacks and Mexicans could not work together. If they did, there would be a fight before the end of the day. Blacks were also incapable of working under another Black.

    It’s our national problem in microcosm: A flood of Third-World Savages acting as the foot-soldiers for a permanent Leftist bureaucracy filled with affirmative-action parasites and White cowards and traitors.

    The government is the enemy of its own country. They no longer have any legitimate authority at all. They are just another gang of liars, cheats and thieves.

  • David Ashton

    How much race crossing in Spain actually occurred during the century of its decline and fall compared to England?

  • David Ashton

    Even if every hostile allegation against the Nazis from 1933 to 1945 were completely correct, this would not justify logically or morally the self-extermination of white societies through mass-immigration and “political correctness”.

  • KingKenton

    A bit of trivia… If you visit the Buffalo National River located in N. Arkansas you can go to the visitors center and watch a short film. In the film it tells the history of how the park came to be. The narrator notes that Orval Faubus was a prominent figure in bringing the park into existence by keeping the Army Corp of Engineers from damming the Buffalo river. It even shows some footage of Faubus canoeing down the river. While watching the movie I had to laugh inwardly thinking about how many liberal-hippie types must of watched that little film only to come face-to-face with the startling realization that one of the South’s most notorious segregationists was responsible for the creation of the nation’s first and premier National River.

    www DOT nps DOT gov/buff/index.htm

  • Glickstein44

    This is in reply to one of QUESTION DIVERSITY post of which i have been unsuccessfully trying to reply to directly…

    After Wallace lost the 1958 gubernatorial election to John Patterson
    his aide,Seymore Trammell, recalled that Wallace said to
    him,”Seymore,you know why i lost that governor’s race? I was outniggered
    by John Patterson and i will never be outniggered again,”

    Wallace was not so much a segregationist as he was a populist and an
    opportunist who pandered to the majority White Alabama vote.

    In the late 70’s Wallace apoligizzed to black civil rights leaders
    for his past actions as a segregationist.He said that while he had
    sought power & glory he realized he needed to seek love &
    forgiveness.In 1079 Wallace said his stand in the schoolhouse door,”I
    was wrong,those days are over,and they ought to be over.” In 1982 he won
    the general election as governor. Wallace final term as governor saw a
    record number of blacks being appointed to state positions.In his fourth
    term Wallace became the first governor to elect two blacks in the same
    cabinet,a number that has never been surpassed.

    Wallace life mirrored that of James Kilpatrick. He was an opportunist
    who would sacrifice whatever principles or beliefs he may had held for
    political and monetary gain.ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

  • Erasmus

    Orval Faubus was right. More Americans are discovering what southerners long knew. Separate but equal was the way to go.

    To know, know, know them is most definitely not to love, love, love them.

  • Gilbert Jacobi

    In honor of the dream speech anniversary, here’s my dream.

    I dream that Americans one day soon will come to understand that the negro was supported rather than crippled by the breathing space provided by segregation, and that the truth-seeking eye of discrimination furnished an essential commentary upon his behavior, a commentary the lack of which has proven disastrous both to his self restraint and to the peace and orderliness of society.

    That 50 years ago negroes lived in self-sufficient communities composed of intact families within which was fostered the drive to succeed rather than complain, to improve oneself rather than esteem oneself, to obey the law rather than flout it.

    King claimed variously that the negro was either “liv[ing] on a lonely island of poverty” or “languishing in the corners of American society”. Leaving aside the geographic confusion, what the negro had In fact was his place. And his place was HIS – from Harlem, New York, to Bronzeville in Chicago – every city had its all-black haven where whites did not go and where blacks were left to themselves. Emotionally, psychically, blacks knew their place, too, and took quiet pride in it, precisely because it was based on real achievement, diligent attention to the laborious process of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, and virtuous sacrifice for the future. And the strong roof over the negro’s place was, in the one truth that managed to slip into King’s speech, his “faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.” 50 years ago the negro was no “exile”, as King claimed. He was, however, certainly, blessedly, less visible, especially when compared to the garish, deafening, ubiquitous presence of “African Americans” today.

    I dream that whites will pay attention to King’s use of the curious and revealing metaphor of the “check” in his speech. ….”[W]e have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check” King says, and after some folderol about liberty and justice, gets to the real agenda: though the check has “insufficient funds”, nevertheless the check “will give us UPON DEMAND the riches of freedom….” etc., etc. As our middle class disappears and our dollar sinks to pennies of its 1963 value, how bitterly have we learned the literal truth hidden in King’s poetic sounding demands!

    Note, too, my fellow Americans, the emphasis on seizing the moment in King’s oration, “the fierce urgency of now” as he put it. After another purple rampage through valleys of segregation and quicksands of injustice King rests for a moment on a rock. Not just any rock, mind you, but the “solid rock of brotherhood.” O hollow promise! Then he gets to business. It would be “fatal” not to yield to “the urgency of the moment.” The negro’s “discontent will not pass”; “1963 is not an end, but a beginning”; and Americans who hope for “tranquility” had better hope for something else. Then comes the most naked threat of all. If the demands of his aroused followers are not met, Americans can expect “[t]he whirlwinds of revolt.” And, charging through the door opened by King and his communist tutors, his followers would make good on his threat, over and over again in the decades to come.

    Some may care to entertain the question of whether King was sincere in his admonition to negroes to eschew hatred and physical violence. I do not. King, who was witnessed in a brawl with a prostitute the night before he died, does not deserve the benefit of the doubt in this. He knew his people, knew the situation in the streets was explosive, like his people, like himself. He begins the speech’s vaunted dream motif with a lie, the lie that his dream of racial integration is “deeply rooted in the American dream.” This is uttered in front of the statue of a man who thought the best solution to the negro question was to send them back to Africa! Listen to the words of his dream for Alabama: ….”Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification … .” If this is not hatred, it certainly is not brotherhood. And why is it that the insatiable philanderer King gets the most worked up just here, when the hitherto most forbidden fruit is exposed for the crowd’s delectation, when “little black boys” get to join hands with “little white girls”? Oh, as sisters and brothers, of course. Sure.

    King ends his hallucinatory speech with the hackneyed bells of freedom clanging everywhere. A bell began to ring all right, on that day in 1963. The bell was not freedom’s but the church bell for a nation’s doom.

  • Defiant White

    Separate but equal did not work because it wasn’t equal. The negro, left to his own devices, will NEVER be able to equal the white man. Integration hasn’t worked either. The negro is incapable of functioning in a civilized society. The only solution I can see is total racial separation . . . plus a big, big wall. I mean a REALLY big wall so we don’t have to deal with the smell and noise of the get-toe.

  • JohnEngelman

    Much of the United States Constitution is ambiguously written. If this was not true, Supreme Court Decisions would nearly always be unanimous.

    Constitutional arguments are only convincing to the already convinced. Instead of arguing that integration is unconstitutional, James J. Kilpatrick should have been pointing out, with graphic illustrations, that whites are not safe attending predominantly black public schools, and that we are not safe living in predominantly black neighborhoods.

    He should have drawn attention to the high black crime rate in order to argue that blacks require a harsher criminal justice system than whites.