Posted on November 18, 2011

The Decline of National Review

James P. Lubinskas, American Renaissance, September 2000

The October 11, 1999, cover story of National Review was a piece by Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru called “A Conservative No More,” which argued that Patrick Buchanan has abandoned conservative principles. The article complained about Mr. Buchanan’s isolationism, opposition to free trade, and support for certain government programs, but the most serious charge appeared in the subtitle: “The tribal politics of Pat Buchanan.” According to Mr. Ponnuru, “Buchananism is a form of identity politics for white people — and becomes more worrisome as it is married to collectivism.” Any expression of white identity is now apparently a betrayal of conservatism. It was not always so.

National Review is considered the flagship publication of post-World War II conservatism. William F. Buckley started it in 1955, declaring that it “stands athwart history yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” Mr. Buckley was yelling “stop” to the spread of communism abroad and liberalism at home. That it should now attack Mr. Buchanan for supporting protectionism and market intervention is consistent with founding principles and no surprise. But few would have thought that after 44 years of publication, a senior editor with an Indian surname would condemn a popular white conservative for speaking up for whites.

William F. Buckley, National Review

In fact, the National Review of the 1950s, 60s and even 70s spoke up for white people far more vigorously than Pat Buchanan would ever dare to today. The early National Review heaped criticism on the civil rights movement, Brown v. Board of Education, and people like Adam Clayton Powell and Martin Luther King, whom it considered race hustlers. Some of the greatest names in American conservatism — Russell Kirk, Willmore Kendall, James Kilpatrick, Richard Weaver, and a young Bill Buckley — wrote articles defending the white South and white South Africans in the days of segregation and apartheid. NR attacked the 1965 immigration bill that opened America up to Third-World immigration, and wrote frankly about racial differences in IQ. There were always hints of compromise, but passages from some back issues could have been lifted right out of American Renaissance. Not so today. NR still supports immigration reform and is not afraid of the IQ debate, but Mr. Ponnuru’s article is just one example of its complete abandonment of the interests of whites as a group. What used to be an important part of the NR message it now dismissed as illegitimate “white identity politics.”

‘Why the South Must Prevail’

A famous example of the early NR stance on race was an unsigned editorial of August 24, 1957, titled “Why the South Must Prevail.” It was almost certainly written by Mr. Buckley, since he uses similar language in his book Up From Liberalism. The editorial argued against giving blacks the vote because it would undermine civilization in the South:

The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class . . . Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.

The final passage about “genuine cultural equality between the races” can be read either as a last-minute loss of will or as a description of a criterion for the black franchise that could never be met. In any case, the editorial recognizes a principle NR would never articulate today: the right of a civilized minority — racial or otherwise — to impose its will upon an uncivilized majority. NR Contributing Editor L. Brent Bozell dissented from the editorial on constitutional grounds but still admitted, “It is understandable that White Southerners should try to have it both ways — they can’t know what would happen should Negroes begin to vote, and they naturally want to cover their bet.”

Needless to say, even in the 1950s, when the interests of whites were more openly recognized, the editorial called down the wrath of the liberals. Prof. William Muehl of the Yale Divinity School wrote: [I]n that vicious and wholly amoral thesis you exposed again the basic savagery of the reactionary mentality at bay.” Would anything NR publishes today evoke such fury from established liberals?

But Mr. Buckley’s magazine stood firm. A book review from the July 13th issue of the same year — 1957 — by Richard Weaver was called, “Integration is Communization.” Mr. Weaver found Carl Rowan’s Go South to Sorrow “a sorry specimen of Negro intellectual leadership,” and went on to express deep suspicion about the whole integrationist enterprise:

‘Integration’ and ‘Communization’ are, after all, pretty closely synonymous. In light of what is happening today, the first may be little more than a euphemism for the second. It does not take many steps to get from the ‘integrating’ of facilities to the ‘communizing’ of facilities, if the impulse is there.

He concluded with a restatement of the principles of voluntary association. “In a free society, associations for educational, cultural, social, and business purposes have a right to protect their integrity against political fanaticism. The alternative to this is the destruction of free society and the replacement of its functions by government, which is the Marxist dream.” Government’s current “civil rights” powers to limit freedom of association have, indeed, brought virtually every corner of our lives under bureaucratic control, but would NR dare say so today?

Likewise in 1957, Sam M. Jones interviewed segregationist Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. In a Q&A format, Mr. Jones asked, “Do the people of the South fear political domination by the Negro or miscegenation or both?”

Senator Russell replied:

Both. As you know, Mr. Jones, there are some communities and some states where the Negro’s voting potential is very great. We wish at all costs to avoid a repetition of the Reconstruction period when newly freed slaves made the laws and undertook their enforcement. We feel even more strongly about miscegenation or racial amalgamation.

The experience of other countries and civilizations has demonstrated that the separation of the races biologically is highly preferable to amalgamation.

I know of nothing in human history that would lead us to conclude that miscegenation is desirable.

Sam M. Jones wrote another article that year criticizing integration in the Washington, D.C., public schools. Titled “Caution: Integration at Work,” he accurately predicted that “the problem of school integration in the nation’s capital may be eventually solved by the steady migration of the white population out of the District of Columbia.” Jones criticized school integration on the grounds of IQ differences, citing “a white average ranging from 105 to 111 and a Negro average of 87 to 89. (An intelligent quotient of 85 is generally considered the minimum for receiving education.)” He went on to note:

‘Data on juvenile delinquency . . . revealed a marked increase in truancy, theft, vandalism and sex-offenses in integrated schools. Dances and dramatic presentations have been quietly given up by most high schools. Senior and junior class plays have been discontinued. Inter-racial fights are frequent and constant vigilance is required to prevent molestation or attempted molestation of white girls by Negro boys or girls. In contrast, the schools outside the integrated neighborhoods have no more such problems than they had four years ago.’ Mr. Jones concluded that ‘the record shows . . . that the problems of integration are extremely serious and that no solution is in sight.’

The September 28, 1957 issue contained a piece by James Kilpatrick called “Right and Power in Arkansas,” in which he endorsed Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus’ call-up of the National Guard to prevent forced integration at Little Rock’s Central High School. Defending a community’s right to keep the peace, he wrote that “the State of Arkansas and Orval Faubus are wholly in the right; they have acted lawfully; they are entitled to those great presumptions of the law which underlie the whole of our judicial tradition.” Predicting a “storm” of white resistance he wrote, “Conceding, for the sake of discussion, that the Negro pupil has these new rights, what of the white community? Has it none?

An unsigned editorial in the September 21, 1957, issue put the blame for the whole incident squarely on the Supreme Court:

Under the disintegrating effects of Brown v. Board of Education, the units of our society are forced into absolute dilemmas for which there is literally no solution within the traditional American structure. Violence and the threat of violence; base emotions; the cynical exploitation of members of both races by ruthless ideologues; the shameful spectacle of heavily armed troops patrolling the lawns and schoolyards of once tranquil towns and villages; the turgid dregs of hatred, envy, resentment, and sorrow — all these are part of the swelling harvest of Brown v. Board of Education.

On the tenth anniversary of Brown, NR offered this June 2, 1964, editorial:

But whatever the exact net result in the restricted field of school desegregation, what a price we are paying for Brown! It would be ridiculous to hold the Supreme Court solely to blame for the ludicrously named ‘civil rights movement’ — that is, the Negro revolt . . . But the Court carries its share of the blame. Its decrees, beginning with Brown, have on the one hand encouraged the least responsible of the Negro leaders in the course of extra-legal and illegal struggle that we now witness around us . . . Brown, as National Review declared many years ago, was bad law and bad sociology. We are now tasting its bitter fruits. Race relations in the country are ten times worse than in 1954.

In the 1960s NR continued to oppose the civil rights movement and the assumption that race could somehow be reduced to irrelevance. A July 2, 1963, editorial declared: “The Negro people have been encouraged to ask for, and to believe they can get, nothing less than the evanescence of color, and they are doomed to founder on the shoals of existing human attitudes — their own included.” Race, as AR continues to point out, cannot be made not to matter, and NR once understood that.

An article by James Kilpatrick in the September 24, 1963, issue argued that the Civil Rights Bill (eventually passed in 1964) should be voted down. He wrote, “I believe this bill is a very bad bill. In my view, the means here proposed are the wrong means . . . In the name of achieving certain ‘rights’ for one group of citizens this bill would impose some fateful compulsions on another group of citizens.” After it passed, an editorial declared: “The Civil Rights Act has been law for only a little over two months, yet it already promises to be the source of much legalistic confusion, civic chaos and bureaucratic malpractice.”

Mr. Kilpatrick also took aim at the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the April 20, 1965 issue. “Must We Repeal the Constitution to Give the Negro the Vote?” he asked, accusing the bill’s supporters of “perverting the Constitution.” He thought certain blacks should be given the right to vote but notes, “Over most of this century, the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise.” He also defended segregation as rational for Southerners. “Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man’s most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life.”

Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s but to a point that would still be intolerable for conservatives today. In a column written five months before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and called “The Issue at Selma,” he called for giving blacks the vote but perhaps restricting the franchise to high school graduates. He sympathized with the Southern position writing, “In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule, and it is a fear not easily dissipated, because it is well-grounded that if the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote, and were to use it as a bloc, and pursuant to directives handed down by some of the more demagogic leaders, chaos would ensue.” He also warned of “a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction.”

Mr. Buckley expressed similar doubts about multiracial democracy in his 1959 Up From Liberalism: “Democracy’s finest bloom is seen only in its natural habitat, the culturally homogenous community. There, democracy induces harmony. Harmony (not freedom) is democracy’s finest flower. Even a politically unstable society of limited personal freedom can be harmonious if governed democratically, if only because the majority understand themselves to be living in the house that they themselves built.”

National Review Cartoon

Cartoon from the June 13, 1957 issue of NR. Would we see its like today?

NR loathed the “Black Power” movement, which it described in a July 19, 1966, editorial as a natural outgrowth of the civil rights movement:

It isn’t surprising when you come to think of it, that the militants in the civil rights movement should move to a new concept — they call it Black Power — at this stage, the movement having come into doldrums. What made it inevitable was the ravenous rhetoric of the past few years, whose motto ‘Freedom Now’ called for nothing less, when analyzed, than the evanescence of color. Since no such thing could be brought about, can be brought about, there is a sense of disappointment among those civil rights workers who somehow permitted themselves to believe that the passage of a few bits and pieces of legislation would transform the life of the American Negro . . . It never followed that Negroes would suddenly cease to be poor, that whites would cease to prefer the company of whites, that the overwhelming majority of the American population would not continue to concentrate on individual and family concerns.

The February 12, 1963, issue attacked another element of the movement: “the Black Muslims — who have no connection with real Mohammedanism — are ferociously anti-white and anti-Christian . . . believe in violence, and train actively for the War of Armageddon, in which the blacks will kill all the whites.”

An October 8, 1968 article called “Black Power and the Campus” by David Brudnoy observes: “Black power today means a total striving by embittered groups of Negroes for everything their fancies demand. In its path lie the crumpled remains of the Constitution, the tattered sleeves of law, the punctured corpse of Reason, and literally the bodies of those Negroes and whites who oppose it.”

In the July 15, 1969 issue we find an editorial about the Black Panthers:

Under a portrait of Che Guevara they installed in a church auditorium, they distribute free food and comic books to kids at breakfasts. The food is contributed by local merchants, who risk having their stores burned down (one case so far — enough to make the point) if they refuse. The comics are crude, nasty affairs depicting heroic black kids killing and intimidating pigs in police uniforms.

NR used to be forthright about dressing down prominent blacks. A June 7, 1958, editorial on Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. stated:

That Powell is a racist has been clear for years. Last June, in National Review, Miss Maureen Buckley covered the subject neatly: ‘Adam Clayton Powell’s championing of the Negro cause has led him to a strange racist extremism . . . In 1946 he pronounced in the Congressional Record his fixed conclusion that, ‘the best thing that could happen would be the passing of the white man’s world [which] has stood for nationalism, oppression, and barbarism.’

In the same manner, a September 7, 1965, article by Will Herberg blames Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement for the 1965 Los Angeles riots:

For years now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates have been deliberately undermining the foundations of internal order in this country. With their rabble-rousing demagoguery, they have been cracking the ‘cake of custom’ that holds us together. With their doctrine of ‘civil disobedience’ they have been teaching hundreds of thousands of Negroes . . . that it is perfectly all right to break the law and defy constituted authority if you are a Negro-with-a-grievance . . . And they have done more than talk. They have on occasion after occasion, in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted ‘school strikes’ sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit violation of the public authority. They have taught anarchy and chaos by word and deed . . .

In 1979 Mr. Buckley was still criticizing Martin Luther King saying, “When it was black men persecuting white or black men — in the Congo, for instance — he was strangely silent on the issue of human rights. The human rights of Chinese, or of Caucasians living behind the Iron Curtain never appeared to move him.” This is pretty mild criticism but it would not appear in today’s NR, which fawns over King as much as the liberals do.

A Reliable Voice

Criticism of the American Civil Rights movement was not the only way in which NR used to promote “identity politics for white people.” It wrote articles about South Africa clearly endorsing apartheid as the only workable system for the country. In the March 9, 1965, issue Russell Kirk decried court-enforced black voting rights as “theoretical folly” that the US would nevertheless survive, but declared prophetically that the same dogma in South Africa, “if applied, would bring anarchy and the collapse of civilization.” For Kirk, civilization required apartheid: “In a time of virulent ‘African nationalism,’ . . . how is South Africa’s ‘European’ population . . . to keep the peace and preserve a prosperity unique in the Dark Continent?” White rule, he answered, is a prudent way, “to govern tolerably a society composed of several races, among which only a minority is civilized.” He called for humane treatment of South African blacks but dismissed their leaders as “witch doctors” and “reckless demagogues.” He wrote frankly about the “‘European’ element which makes South Africa the only modern and prosperous African country.”

NR also used to understand immigration. A September 21, 1965, article by Ernest van den Haag called “More Immigration?” took on the impending reform [signed into law on October 3, 1965, by Lyndon Johnson] that would open up America to the Third World. Mr. van den Haag, who is still listed as a contributing editor to NR, argued that our then-sound immigration laws should be made even stricter, not looser. Rejecting the charge that the laws were “racist,” he wrote: “one need not believe that one’s own ethnic group, or any ethnic group, is superior to others . . . in order to wish one’s country to continue to be made up of the same ethnic strains in the same proportions as before. And, conversely, the wish not to see one’s country overrun by groups one regards as alien need not be based on feelings of superiority or ‘racism’.” He goes on to say, “the wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s nation requires no justification . . . any more than the wish to have one’s own children, and to continue one’s family through them need be justified or rationalized by a belief that they are superior to the children of others.”

A September 26, 1975, review of Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints makes much the same point. Prof. Jeffrey Hart, who is currently listed as a senior editor, called the book a “sensation” that rocked liberal sensibilities. He wrote:

Most people . . . are able to perceive that the ‘other group’ looks rather different and lives rather differently from their own. Such ‘racist’ or ‘ethnocentric’ feelings are undoubtedly healthy, and involve merely a preference for one’s own kind. Indeed — and Raspail hammers away at this point throughout his novel — no group can long survive unless it does ‘prefer itself.’ . . . The liberal rote anathema on ‘racism’ is in effect a poisonous assault upon Western self-preference.

Mr. van den Haag took a thoroughly sound position on IQ differences. In the December 1, 1964, issue — a full thirty years before The Bell Curve and five years before Arthur Jensen’s celebrated article in the Harvard Educational Review  — he interviewed an unnamed “eminent sociologist” (who happened to be himself). Under the title “Intelligence or Prejudice?” and the subtitle, “An eminent sociologist discusses Negro intelligence and accuses certain of his colleagues of prejudice against logic and discrimination against facts,” the article took on the ever-trendy nonsense that intelligence cannot be tested and that the concept of IQ is meaningless.

The “eminent sociologist” defended IQ testing by citing the work of Hans Eysenck and research on identical twins. He claimed intelligence is largely heritable and that environmental factors cannot improve it by much. Mr. van den Haag wrote that integrated education impairs whites and “demoralizes” blacks, and advocated separation: “I am all in favor of improving the quality of education for all. But this can be done only if pupils are separated according to ability (whatever determines it). And this means very largely according to race.”

In an April 8, 1969 column called “On Negro Inferiority” Mr. Buckley wrote about the furor caused by Arthur Jensen’s research about race and IQ, calling it “massive, apparently authoritative.” Mr. Buckley even bragged that “Professor Ernest van den Haag, writing in National Review (Dec. 1, 1964) . . . brilliantly anticipated the findings of Dr. Jensen and brilliantly coped with their implications.”

The late Revilo Oliver, classicist and outspoken racialist, made regular appearances in the early NR. Mr. Buckley thought so highly of him he put his name on the masthead and invited him to his wedding. Oliver, who refused to compromise and was eventually banished from the magazine, also knew something about race and IQ before Arthur Jensen did. This is from his November 2, 1957, review of Ashley Montagu’s Man: His First Million Years:

Dr. Montagu, who composed the UNESCO Statement on Race, has again skillfully trimmed the facts of anthropology to fit the Liberal propaganda line. Every anthropologist knows, for example, that aborigines in Australia propagated their species for a hundred thousand years without ever suspecting that pregnancy might be a consequence of sexual intercourse. Equally striking evidence of intellectual capacity is provided by the many peoples that never discovered how to kindle a fire or plant a seed. But Dr. Montagu, after making a great show of cautious objectivity, proclaims that ‘anthropologists are unable to find any evidence’ of ‘significant differences in mental capacity’ between ‘ethnic groups.’ If you can tell such whoppers with a straight face, you too can ask the ‘United Nations’ to recognize your right to largesse from the pockets of American taxpayers.

No Longer Yelling ‘Stop’

Clearly, the early National Review was often a voice for white Americans. It not only defended their culture, it defended their race. White Southerners had a right — both constitutionally and morally — to protect themselves from black rule and black incivility. White South Africans had the same right. The nation as a whole had a right to defend its European heritage and racial identity by closing its borders to non-whites. As Mr. van den Haag wrote, this policy needed no justification. And if low black intelligence and high crime rates hindered white students from learning, that was sufficient reason for separate education.

Today’s NR has not yet abandoned every subject of interest to whites qua whites. It is solidly against affirmative action and multicultural education. It defended The Bell Curve and has published reviews of J. Philippe Rushton’s work. It still advocates immigration reform, though its position now is that a pause in immigration will make it easier for the non-whites who are already here to assimilate. Even that stance could crumble. In 1998 Mr. Buckley demoted the two men most responsible for the magazines anti-immigration tone, editor John O’Sullivan and senior editor Peter Brimelow. Filling their places are people like Mr. Ponnuru and John Miller, who like immigration and are afraid of “identity politics for white people.” Today’s NR is no longer the brave journal that fought integration and tried to keep America European. It is not yelling “stop” to multiracialism and the displacement of the country’s founding stock by aliens. That, as Mr. Ponnuru explains, would be to play “tribal politics.”

[Editor’s Note: This essay appears in A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century, a collection of some of the finest essays and reviews published by American Renaissance. It is available for purchase here.]

35 responses to “The Decline of National Review

  1. Question Diversity says:

    I wonder how conservative, either racially or non-racially, Buckley ever really was all along. Anyone who went on the rampage and purge that he did later on in life and in the history of National Reprobate magazine must not have ever been “for real.” There have always been CIA rumors surrounding his name. I have always gotten the sense that the whole purpose of NR was an extension of the Gramscian “long march through the institutions” maneuver, only this case, since the Gramsciites already completed their march through the “mainstream” of society, they now wanted to march through “conservatism” and co-opt the “opposition.”

    Or, to put it another way, NR’s purpose was to stand athwart history and yell, “Slow down just a little bit! And let us drive every once in awhile!”

    Lamestream conservatives whined when James Buckley, William F.’s son, endorsed Obama in 2008, calling him a “traitor” to his father’s legacy. Really, I think Boy Buckley was true to his father’s legacy. James was where his father would had been at the time had he lived.

  2. margaret says:

    First and foremost, the White racial cause has nothing to do with conservatism or Christianity or traditional American values, anti abortion, sexual virtue or good manners.

    Anyone who wants to write something about affirmative action can use NRs research and archive section. I think you will have to pay for this service. It has articles such as the NYPD sergeants exam circa 1990 when every black and hispanic who took it failed badly. Failed below 60 all of them, despite an entire year of tutoring.

    Despite the propaganda of the anti White racists, not all Whites are rich and successful. After 40 years of affirmative action discrimination, we are getting more and more poor.

    True to its conservative position, NR was always against social security, welfare of any kind and most of all, decent living wages for the working and middle class including skilled people such as nurses, electricians and iron workers who build world trade center type buildings, paralegals etc.

    It has done nothing whatsoever about the war against Christmas, although many NR writers were Catholics.

    That said, from 1975 to 1995 it was a source of news about affirmative action and the horrors White students and teachers endured because of school desegregation.

  3. margaret says:

    “In 1998 Mr. Buckley demoted the two men most responsible for the magazines anti-immigration tone, editor John O’Sullivan and senior editor Peter Brimelow. Filling their places are people like Mr. Ponnuru and John Miller, who like immigration and are afraid of “identity politics for white people.”

    NR has always been pro cutthroat cannibal capitalism. He was even against Workmen’s compensation. This is a major plank in the conservative platform. The more workers there are, the lower wages and working conditions will fall.

    Buckley was primarily anti communist, anti welfare and pro cutthroat capitalism. His disdain for the average person, White, black, or Hispanic was noticeable to anyone who ever read NR.

  4. elitist says:

    The current orthodoxy on race no longer has anything to do with leftism, or even liberalism:

    aside from a handful of “kooks,” all conservatives without exception embrace exactly the same orthodoxy as liberals, Marxists, etc.

    Some of the above quotes are fascinating because they remind us how recently it was possible to point out the obvious:

    European civilization is indisputably, incomparably superior to any other past or present, and the reason for our superiority is clearly our superior evolved intelligence.

    The fact that this statement is not regarded as simply self-evident, but is instead considered an obscenity which can lead to job loss and even prosecution means that whites have become collectively psychotic.

    I use the word “psychotic” because this is not simply hypocrisy, an intellectual mistake, a miscalculation, or some kind of misperception:

    it means denying, day after day, year after year, absolutely everything which our senses tell us about the behavior and mental ability of blacks and other nonwhite races.

    It means a total and blanket denial of reality 24/7, no matter what the consequences – including the collapse of European civilization, which at this point appears imminent.

    But there’s hope:

    if someone is totally brainwashed if I was can wake up and become a race realist, then anyone can.

    Unfortunately, there are few were willing to make the sacrifice I made:

    opting out of a well-paid academic career after putting in a stellar performance earning my PhD at an Ivy league university.

    Everyone I know who is successful academic would saw their right arms off with a butter knife before they admit to even the remotest possibility of racial inequality in intelligence or psychology.

    Oddly enough, I still have no idea why I am so different from them, nor how to deprogram them from the current psychotic orthodoxy.

  5. Anonymous says:

    “There have always been CIA rumors surrounding his name.”

    It’s not a rumor. He worked for the CIA in Mexico City in the late forties as soon as he finished college. He has written about it. He lived in Mexico as a child so spoke excellent Spanish. His Father owned one of those big American oil companies that the Mexicans nationalized and paid a huge sum for in the late 1930’s.

    Perhaps he hoped that if he served in the CIA his family would get the oil company back and be able to keep the money the Mexicans paid for it as well.

    When I first read NR he would publish the truth about MLK every January. By 1990 however, January issues were like the public schools, just worship of St. Martin the communist plagiarist.

    Considering how anti communist, anti socialist and anti any kind of welfare or living wage Buckley was, his later worship of communist MLK was strange.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Perhaps National Review is being unfairly characterized. Author Ayn Rand was also very much against the civil rights movement. According to her, her reasoning, was that the movement and it’s expression were based on nothing but naked racism. She was against racism, as the National Review may have been, however, at this late stage Rand might even support American Renaissance as it is now the true anti-racist movement?

  7. Anonymous says:

    Speaking of MLK, I just looked on a map of Reno NV. In that town that has almost no blacks, one of the major streets is named MLK Highway. Gag

  8. jack in Chicago says:

    This is an excellent article, one of American Renaissance’s very best.

    There is no reason to waste a lot of time about National Review post 1998 after the purges of Sobran, Brimelowe, O’Sullivan.

    National Review simply took the “30 pieces of silver” – they betrayed the American people, they aren’t on our side, they are on the enemy side. It’s like Whites in the South ~ 1978 who were still voting straight Democrat because the Democrat party was the pro White party in 1878, times change. Whites need to focus on the here and now.

    Nobody reads National Review – the Jonah Goldberg Review these days. We don’t care what they have to say – they hate us, want to see our people replaced by the the hordes from the 3rd world NW hells. That’s life.

    It’s like hard core pornography, Black on White rape pornography – sure it’s bad, but we don’t watch it or support it. We don’t read or support National Review in this year 2011. We’ve moved on.

  9. Harumphty Dumpty says:

    As U.S. society fell more under the control of anti-Whites, William Buckley had to choose between remaining a pro-White or maintaining his profitable and ego-satisfying enterprise. He chose the latter, and became just another anti-White who supported White Genocide.

    This is portrayed very clearly by the excellent writer Joe Sobran in his piece, “How I Was Fired by Bill Buckley.”

    “The most telling issue, in a way, was the Pollard case. Conceived in preoccupation with the Hiss-Chambers case, the magazine couldn’t bring itself to condemn Israel for Jonathan Pollard’s espionage. It demanded the death penalty for Pollard, but amnesty for those who had recruited him and paid him! Moreover, it showed no interest in whether the military secrets Pollard sent to Israel had been passed on to the Soviet Union, as some reports had it.

    Here was the Hiss case of the Right. And some conservatives were evading the critical questions just as the Soviets’ liberal partisans in this country had done a generation earlier. What the silence of most conservatives exposed was not disloyalty or treason, but insincerity. All their patriotic words were empty. It was all a game, or a way of making a living.”

    I understand the fear of the “conservatives” (what were they out to conserve? NOT the United States!), and I understand the source of the fear, and I disagree with Sobran that the resulting silence of the “conservatives” did not constitute disloyalty! It obviously DID constitute disloyalty! And for the same pecuniary motives (Sobran’s conclusion) that so often motivate disloyalty!*

    I’m not saying that I would necessarily have behaved better, but I AM describing the reality.

    So whatever the original purpose of NR had been, by the time of the Pollard affair and related issues I agree with Question Diversity that NR was manifesting itself as “an extension of the Gramscian ‘long march through the institutions’”

    And now NR is even more visibly anti-White: “…people like Mr. Ponnuru and John Miller…like immigration and are afraid of ‘identity politics for white people.'”

    These gentlemen would likely protest that they are just anti-racist. But they are clearly anti-White.

    Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-White

    *Thoughtful readers may object that there was no intention of disloyalty on the part of most of the conservatives, since Pollard’s paymasters would have been regarded by many of them as a friendly power (putting aside for the moment the very strong indications at the time that important information was passed on to the Soviet Union). Even if this point could be granted, absolution could not be. The objection is too similar to the position still held by the left’s fans of Julius Rosenberg, who maintain that he was spiritually innocent because he acted on behalf of what he perceived to be the greater good.

  10. Varina says:

    Well, this is a bit off topic, but I’m just curious. Was Buckley a heavy drinker or maybe an alcoholic? I saw him some years ago being interviewed on C-Span. The morning edition, for those of you who don’t know, is generally 7am-10am. Buckley looked terrible. He was able to speak coherently, but his face was flushed and he had that watery-eyed look you get after a night of heavy drinking. Coming from an Irish family with its fair share of alcoholics, ever since that interview I’ve wondered about that.

  11. Jack in Chicago says:

    And another thing………..

    Never put a lot of trust in some WASP from Yale…..

    OK, sure – our own American Renaissance publisher Jared Taylor (Yale alumnus) is great. But Jared Taylor is an exception. WASP Yalies like William F Buckley and George Bush Sr. are wussies – go with White working class Americans, tough Italian Americans like Frank Rizzo or Joe Arpaio or Tom Tancredo, or tough Corsicans like Napoleon or Romanian folk hero Vlad the Impaler – Count Dracula who took a rather dim view of Muslim invaders.

    Our people are not going to be saved by rich WASPs like William F Buckley from Yale University in New Haven Connecticut.

    Maybe it was Jared’s Japanese upbringing that made him different. But I take the position that Jared Taylor is the only Yale alumnus that I will trust/respect.

  12. john says:

    If one were to select the most serious intractable problem this nation faces it would almost have to be the black African descendants in our midst, who are multiplying much faster than we are. I exclude Hispanics among the “we” to whom I’m referring.

    The well-established intellectual deficit of blacks versus all other races is known to practically everybody in this country, but to state so publicly is to invite personal ruin and even prosecution in some instances.

    My guess it that we’ll deal with it by breaking up the country. States wanting to will simply secede, and blacks living within those areas will find their rights and priveleges quickly curtailed. Whites living in heavily black areas will likely move into those former US territories with few blacks.

    Whatever happens, the black African race will spend the end of this nation as we’ve known it. Fairly deep into old farthood at this point I may not live to see it, but I’m quite confident that my kids will.

  13. john says:

    NR is not turning its back on whites. It’s simply reacting in the only way it can, addressed as it is to a mass conservative audience.

    To now print the things it used to say forty or fifty years ago would ignite such a firestorm of criticism that people would be afraid to have neighbor see it on the coffee table.

    Just as we’ve been labeled racist scum by the MSM, so would the NR if they went back to the reporting they did in the Fifties or Sixties on matters of race.

  14. on the lam from the Thought Police says:

    The fact that it used to be possible to tell the truth about the black race in a mainstream publication is startling. None of the arguments against racial integration have been disproved by subsequent events. Indeed, those arguments look better now than they did when originally written.

    White advocates of integration avoid most blacks in their personal lives. They do not send their children to predominately black public schools. They do prevent an honest discussion of the problems blacks cause by their crime, their inferior intelligence, and their rampant sexuality.

    The black race is biologically inferior and inherently dangerous because it emerged more recently from the stone age than did Caucasians and Orientals. Until it becomes safe to say that in public, I shall remain on the lam from the Thought Police.

  15. John Engelman says:

    It must be said that segregationists damaged their cause by their violent response to civil rights demonstrators. It was difficult to argue that blacks were violent and criminal when peaceful demonstrators were jeered at, beaten, and sometimes killed.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Conservatism may have made sense in 1954, however it is insanity in 2011. In fact, in America, so-called Conservative leaders like Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are just hucksters living in mansions preaching to gullible Whites. WN in 2011 are not Conservatives they are revolutionaries. If you disagree please turn Rush back on and root for Herman Cain.

  17. olewhitelady says:

    Let me say this about Pat Buchanan: his views today are what they have always been. Even back when I was an unwitting cultural liberal, I admired Pat for his consistency. He’s been accused of being a tribalist, an isolationist, a racist, and an anti-semite for decades.

    There is an element of the right that, for financial reasons, tries to fit in with the nation’s preeminent elite, which right now happens to be left-leaning, if not outright falling-off-the-cliff left. Such rightists care only for their pocketbooks. They’re willing to accept the demise of the white power structure, globalization, same-sex marriage, or any other change as long as they remain in the money. They would bow lower to the Japanese than Obama did. They would have been the first to welcome the Nazis had Hitler defeated the Allies.

    Pat Buchanan has always expressed pride in his Celtic/Germanic roots. He has condemned criminal blacks and promiscuous homosexuals for years. He disapproves of Americans who appear to love Israel more than their own country. He’s not the one who has changed.

  18. Question Diversity says:

    No, John Chinaman at 15, it must not be said, for it wasn’t true save in rare instances. Those infamous “violent responses” you moan about were almost always provoked by the civil rights rabble, usually black teenagers and young adults. The CRM loved to use teenagers and young adults to do their street theater dirty work, because they all knew they had nothing to lose and no job from which to get fired when they got tossed into the gray bar hotel. Ironically, the CRM were trying to tell us that real black adults couldn’t get jobs in the Seggy Deep South, yet they had jobs that they feared losing if they participated in the street rabble.

    Common sense application time: The white Southern politicians and law enforcement authorities knew that the left-media’s cameras were turned on. Why would they do anything but avoid the application of force until it was absolutely needed? Also, most of those “incidents” involving so-called K-people at the time, we found out later those were Federal agents provocateurs. Drudge had a story yesterday from the UK Guardian paper (left wing, I know) about how most of the FBI-caught “terror conspiracies” are nothing more than FBI smoke screen false flags, such as the Liberty City Seven, the Fort Dix Five, etc. (Incidentally, that is one of my big beefs with the Robert Spencer/Pamela Geller/Jihad Watch mentality, that they all bite into every FBI false flag operation as if it were real Muslim terrorism.) The main reason is that Federal law enforcement agencies are jealous of their annual budgets. Now, apply that logic to the 1960s, and add to it that the FBI’s Machiavellian boss (LBJ) wanted civil rights legislation passed.

  19. ATBOTL says:

    Has anyone read NR lately? It’s little more than an inside the belt way, establishment cheer section. They have puff pieces about Newt Gingrich and stuff like that.

    The only good writer on immigration recently has been Jason Richwine. The rest of them are whistling past the graveyard.

  20. Harumphty Dumpty says:

    14 — on the lam from the Thought Police wrote at 3:04 AM on November 19:

    The fact that it used to be possible to tell the truth about the black race in a mainstream publication is startling.

    Check out this Time Magazine article from 1958:

    “THEY are afraid to say so in public, but many of the North’s big-city mayors groan in private that their biggest and most worrisome problem is the crime rate among Negroes.”


    Monday, Apr. 21, 1958

    Nuts, that link to Time used to access the entire article.

    This link claims (I think accurately) to be a copy of the article:

    “Most often, Negro leaders point to poverty as the No. 1 factor in Negro crime. As Editor Louis Martin of the Chicago Defender sees it, the main cause is poor and crowded housing. But the moderate crime rates among European immigrants, subject to similar stresses of poverty and bad housing, suggest that other factors may be more important.”

    “Abetting the concealment campaign is the feeling shared by many whites that it is unfair, inflammatory and even un-American to talk about Negro crime.”

    Whites are still embarrassed at any discussion of the various facets of White Genocide. Anti-Whites have trained Whites to be racial sheep, and have established a system of terror (terror of loss of livelihood) to enforce that training.

    Those who would end our existence on Earth call themselves anti-racists, but what they are is anti-White.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White

  21. Anonymous says:

    “It was difficult to argue that blacks were violent and criminal when peaceful demonstrators were jeered at, beaten, and sometimes killed”.

    If you think people of color were peaceful and pleasant, and it was whites committing most of the hate crimes and murders back then, too, then you’re sorely quite mistaken and as deluded and misseducated as some media executive must want you to be.

  22. Anonymous says:

    “Moreover, it showed no interest in whether the military secrets Pollard sent to Israel had been passed on to the Soviet Union, as some reports had it.”

    CIA has confirmed that the secrets were sold to China.

  23. Anonymous says:

    “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White”

    They’ve certainly made racism out to be a place about as low as one can go. Maybe that’s why they work so hard to remind us that people of color can’t be racists.

  24. Anonymous says:

    In 1996 a relative of mine sent Buckley a copy of a small book

    dealing starkly with race and IQ and genetics (the Jensenism

    “heresy” ) entitled America’s Bimodal Crisis. Buckley’s secretary

    replied in Buckley’s behalf–thanking my relative for the book and affirming that it was of interest to Buckley. I found it

    astounding when the “coup” later happened and the race realists

    (e.g. O’Sullivan, Brimelow…)were ushered out of NR. I yet assume that this massacre of talent and honesty happened under intense external pressures and did not ripen naturally within NR nor within Buckley himself (?)

  25. Anonymous says:

    10 — Varina wrote at 11:23 PM on November 18:

    Well, this is a bit off topic, but I’m just curious. Was Buckley a heavy drinker or maybe an alcoholic?

    Circumstantial evidence (not admissable in court yet compelling nonetheless) tends to say yes. Evidence points to, if not a textbook-case, capital-A Alcoholic, someone who at least does more drinking than the American Medical Ass’n recommended dosages.

    And no, I don’t think it’s “off-topic” at all, but rather a quite legitimate point.

  26. John Engelman says:

    The National Review may have declined, but its chief message has always been, “Let’s skew things a little more in favor of the well to do.”

    The policies advocated by National Review are very different from the policies advocated by The Nation, but they are equally inimical to the interests of white blue collar workers living in proximity to high crime ghetto neighborhoods.

  27. SS says:

    I’m still dumbfounded as to why White People continue to Sit Down, Be Quiet and Pay Taxes.

    Indians are about Five Percent of the Population yet they own damn near if not half or more of ALL the Hotels in the ENTIRE United States of America. They’ve also helped reduce the Wages in our Best Fields not to mention taking them over yet White People “love” them.

    Hispanics are just outright Rude and Demanding and what does Whitey do? They appease them.

    Blacks, same and Stupid Whitey responds to this the same way, appeasement.

    Muslims are small in Percent too yet look at all the concessions they’re given.

    Asians are small too, demand same and our response is same for them too.

    Is brainwashing and/or conditioning really this powerful? Is it really true that Whitey cannot see that what is going on is the Total Annihilation of their very own Existence?

  28. Anonymous says:

    “Indians are about Five Percent of the Population yet they own damn near if not half or more of ALL the Hotels in the ENTIRE United States of America”.

    When a neighborhood is full of color it’s vibrant and diverse and they celebrate efforts to continue these important efforts and to give back. When a place is 1% too white, by their calculation, it’s nasty racism that damns the entire nation (the white part) and action must be taken to change this.

  29. Cape to Cairo says:

    16 — Anonymous wrote at 5:32 AM on November 19:

    “Conservatism may have made sense in 1954, however it is insanity in 2011. In fact, in America, so-called Conservative leaders like Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are just hucksters living in mansions preaching to gullible Whites. WN in 2011 are not Conservatives they are revolutionaries. If you disagree please turn Rush back on and root for Herman Cain.”

    I actually do disagree with one part of what you said. WN in 2011 are “counter” revolutionaries.

    Revolutionaries are cultural marxists that want to “bring it all down, man”, but counter revolutionaries are those who want to reinstate the society of better times, from times when society was virtuous, religious, family oriented, structured, unsubverted and everyone knew their place.

  30. Anonymous says:


    Buckley–private “demons”

    From a friend of a friend of mine who was reportedly married into

    the family for a time: Buckley too often had too much to drink

    and was sometimes very verbally sadistic when drunk. Speculation about sexual “versatility” probably springs from the fact that

    at, or near, the time he entered puberty , he was enrolled in a

    British “public” school. He passed muster to work for the CIA

    for a time, so it is unlikely he was known, or suspected, to be

    emotionally unsound.

  31. Marc B says:

    Although NR’s former positions on race may be more in line with the alternative right/paleo opinions of today, it’s been pushing more subtle agenda of big government conservatism and globalism since the early 1960’s. NR has been systematically attacking traditional, nationalist conservatism since the early 1960’s.

    William F. Buckley did a stellar job of marginalizing the John Birch Society, and the JBS and it’s positions became shorthand for coo-coo quickly thereafter. He even took credit for turning off so many traditional conservatives to the republican party that it cost his buddy Barry Goldwater the presidency. Establishment conservatism of the Bush and Rockefeller variety, with a large dose of the neo-conservatism of the Podhoretz/Kristol axis tagging along, became the de-facto ideology of all “right-thinking” conservatives by the mid-1980’s, and NR has been at the vanguard, acting as the primary intellectual change agents of this transformation.

    Since these ideas have been put into practice, you can trace the failures of the modern republican party to these wars, growth of government, open borders and support for free trade. Pat Buchanan, the Tea Party movement, and the rabid support of Ron Paul are reactions to the failures of republican policies and mainstream conservatism.

  32. Who Run Bartertown? says:

    Two or three decades ago, one of NATIONAL REVIEW’s covers featured an image of a group of third-worldly yoots and a caption that read “The Emerging Republican Majority” [perhaps punctuated with a question mark]. Trust the Stupid Party to support immigration policies which ensure that the bones-making thesis of a young Kevin Phillips is now risible. The Stupid Party?– Make that the Delusional Party.

  33. Shawn (the female) says:

    “Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru.” I see what might be a slight bit of a clue as to NR’s demise.

    Manner of Death: Homicide

    Cause of Death: Diversification

  34. Harumphty Dumpty says:

    27 — SS wrote at 2:08 AM on November 20:

    “I’m still dumbfounded as to why White People continue to Sit Down, Be Quiet and Pay Taxes.”

    Terror. Terror that if you voice your thoughts, you’ll be hauled off in the middle of the night and taken to some dank basement where a gun will be placed to the back of your head and you’ll be told that you’re fired from your job and that a scarlet “R” will be burnt into your forehead to aid your future job search.

    Not quite the same ending as under the terror systems in the Communist countries, but it’s still a terror system.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White

  35. Anonymous says:

    15 — John Engelman wrote at 3:42 AM on November 19:

    It must be said that segregationists damaged their cause by their violent response to civil rights demonstrators. It was difficult to argue that blacks were violent and criminal when peaceful demonstrators were jeered at, beaten, and sometimes killed.


    At it again, John? Is that what you saw on the BIASED “news”? Peaceful blacks? Think again.

    Most Southern Whites KNEW what desegregation would bring. Now we are paying the price for our ignorance and foolishness concerning blacks. Shame on the rest of the White population at that time for caving even though they KNEW deep inside that blacks would end up destroying our race, our neighborhoods, our schools, our shopping malls, our children and our whole country.