Which is why I'm not linking this tomorrow, on MLK Day: American Renaissance: The Decline of National Review.
Subtitle: "NR was once a voice for whites."
[T]he 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.
[. . .] 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.”
And on like that. I do suggest reading the whole thing, if you can stomach it.
Then have a look at this threat at Tacitus:
I submit that those booing the president of the United States, laying flowers at the grave of Dr. King--who was one of the greatest uniters in our nation--sullied his memory yesterday by using tactics of division, polarization and hate.
The comments are, um, about at that level. In fact, I'll save you hours and sum up the right-wing talking points on recent events:
- MLK was opposed to affirmative action, according to one interpretation of the I Have a Dream speech.
- The Mississippi NAACP supported Charles Pickering.
- Robert Byrd was in the KKK.
- Condi Rice.
- Colin Powell.
And that's pretty much it. Rather than debating, they just toss those out. They're not terribly intelligent.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Jason and Jeanne (er, the person who does Body and Soul, there's not a name on the entries. . .) and Silver Rights (I give up on the name thing. . .) and doubtless lots of other people I'm forgetting have worthwhile things to say. Perhaps I should have suggested reading them instead.