James Edwards Interviews Co-Host Keith Alexander
What follows is an interview conducted by James Edwards with TPC co-host Keith Alexander. It was originally published by The Barnes Review.
James Edwards: You grew up in the 1950s and ’60s, which was a different world than those born into today’s multicultural hellscape have experienced. For the benefit of readers who weren’t around to experience it, what did they most miss out on?
Keith Alexander: The existence of a vast blue-collar middle class, for starters. A guy with a high school education could get an industrial job that paid enough for him to get married, buy a modest home, have kids, and give his family a middle-class life on one income. This was standard across the United States in the 1950s and ‘60s. It lasted into the ‘70s in Southern cities like Memphis because the South was about 10 years behind liberal bastions like California. But even rural towns usually had at least one local factory that could provide such employment. Culturally speaking, marriage was the norm and divorce was rare and usually considered scandalous when it occurred. I grew up in a working-class neighborhood and each Sunday morning all the fathers, dressed in coats and ties, loaded up their wives and children and headed to church. Wives might have a seasonal or even a part-time job, but their primary job was raising the children and keeping house. Families had dinner together most evenings. It was wonderful.
Edwards: What is radical egalitarianism and what have been some of the stops along its destructive path?
Alexander: Radical egalitarianism differs from mere egalitarianism when it refuses to be tempered by common sense and obvious empirical evidence of human differences. For instance, when Leftist ideologues refuse to acknowledge the scientifically quantified studies confirming differences in average IQs between the different races, they have crossed over the frontier from egalitarianism into the realm of radical egalitarianism, which degrades and destroys order and proper societal functioning. Radical egalitarianism must be resisted if we are to maintain a fair and efficiently functioning society. Surrendering to radical egalitarianism will transform America into a third-world nation. Some of the stops along the road to radical egalitarian decline and degradation were feminism, no-fault divorce, the sexual revolution, the so-called Civil Rights movement, drug culture, the homosexual/LGBTQ movement, and the “transgender” movement, among others. The woke agenda and all of its manifestations are intended to marginalize, ostracize, and eventually destroy the founding stock of Europe and America.
Edwards: The left has been engaged in a tireless “long march through the institutions,” as mentioned by paleoconservative thinkers like William S. Lind. What does he mean, and which institutions have been targeted?
Alexander: This is a term derived from Cultural Marxism. It is one of three key concepts defining the methodology of Cultural Marxism, the other two being “Critical Theory” and “Cultural Pessimism”. In the Civil Rights movement, for example, Critical Theory analysis was applied to public primary and secondary education, higher education, state governments, and voting procedures. The “theory” was to subject the institutions to a barrage of relentless, destructive criticism in a completely negative manner while never admitting any goodness or benefits in them. The “Long March” went through the media, academia, the government, the courts, the prosecutorial system, the arts, the private sector, and even the churches. The desired result of this drumbeat of criticism was the inducing of “Cultural Pessimism” in whites who were thereby convinced of their inferiority and evil by their authority figures. Cultural Marxism is important because it is the template for all the destructive societal change we have experienced in America since the early 1930s and in Western Europe since the end of WWII. These changes are celebrated by the left as the triumph of liberalism, which has greatly diminished our quality of life in the West. All the societal institutions that contributed to setting Western cultural, moral, and ethical standards have been targeted, and have been taken over.
Cultural Marxism is a variant form of Marxism developed in 1920s Germany by Marxists disappointed by the failure of Communism to take over all of Europe as predicted after WWI. How did Marx and Engels get it wrong? A think tank called “The Frankfurt School” located within the University of Frankfurt concluded that Marx and Engels were wrong in assuming that the major fault line in human society was economics. Instead, they concluded that race was much more significant, and revolutions should be targeted at aggravating racial animus. This was the blueprint for the Civil Rights movement in America and the current immigration crisis in America and Europe.
Edwards: You have often pointed out that America’s hard turn to the left noticeably began on May 17, 1954. Why was the Brown v Board of Education decision such an ominous event in American history?
Alexander: The Brown decision was a milestone for radical Leftist change in America. The Civil Rights movement created the blueprint for change followed by successive waves of radical egalitarian movements that followed. Brown established the use of “lawfare” as the most effective way to make sweeping societal change that circumvented the will of the people. In practical terms, it undermined the existence of the blue-collar middle class in America and the reliable path it provided for upward social mobility. This was done by ruining the quality of public education through racial integration. The key to sustaining a blue-collar middle class with realistic prospects for upward social mobility was easy access to high-quality, free public education. This prospect was destroyed by the racial integration decreed by Brown, which was undemocratically forced on Americans by an oligarchy of unelected judges.
When Brown really began to gain traction with court-ordered bussing, the newly integrated public schools were a disaster. Conscientious parents realized that consigning their children to such schools was the equivalent of casting them into a danger zone. The alternative was to send your children to private schools, a massive unbudgeted expense. The days of having large families were over and many blue-collar white families began only having the number of children they could afford to send to private schools. This led to the phenomenon of “white flight,” or whites moving to newly created suburbs with schools far away from the dangerous social experiments. This led in turn to orderly neighborhoods in the city being turned into ghettos. Those who moved to the suburbs often sold their homes at a loss, and bought their new homes at a premium, thereby depleting their resources and wrecking their retirement plans. The blue-collar middle class was under assault and quickly evaporated. While the prospects for working and middle-class whites were diminishing, black prospects were on the rise due to affirmative action policies which gave them unmerited access to selective colleges, universities, and professional schools. All of this was a radical change from the bucolic days of 1950s America when the streets were safe, and crime was rare. Life was good – much better than now for everyone – even blacks. When I was a child, everyone from the children of millionaires on down attended public schools. If you went to a private school that meant you were either a Roman Catholic or a problem child. This interaction lessened class divisions among whites and promoted upward social mobility. That’s all gone now.
Edwards: In what ways were the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 harmful to the interests of founding stock Americans?
Alexander: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has led to a massive Leftist transformation of our laws and government that, if not stopped, will result in irreparable changes that will permanently cast whites into the role of a persecuted minority in a nation founded by their ancestors. The legislation was advertised by the Left as safeguarding the so-called sacred principle of “One Man, One Vote”, but what if the man can’t be bothered to vote? This was the problem the Left encountered. It was assumed that black interests in the South would transform the politics of the South if only they were allowed to vote. The problem liberals failed to acknowledge was that blacks were already voting freely in most of the South at that time. Blacks in places like Memphis had been voting since the early 1900s but often had to be bribed with concessions to do so. The problem of blacks not voting required a new system that at least tacitly allowed “proxy voting” on behalf of reluctant black voters. The 1965 Voting Rights Act, wrapped sanctimoniously in “One Man, One Vote” rhetoric, eventually allowed for expansive early voting periods, unfettered absentee voting, mail-in voting, and other remedies that virtually invited voting fraud. Republican politicians know that if they scrutinize these votes too closely, they’ll be accused of “racism” and the charge of racism is kryptonite to Republican politicians.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 will soon make such shenanigans obsolete – not only in the South but nationwide. As Berchtold Brecht, a communist Jewish/German playwright said in the late 1940s, “If you don’t like the election results, change the electorate” and that’s exactly what the Left is doing by third-world immigration legitimized under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. These immigrants are almost always non-white and their numbers assure that states like California stay permanently in the blue column while other states wait to be flipped. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 are simply more weapons in the vast Leftist arsenal to punish and dispossess the founding stock of America.
Edwards: How have so-called “affirmative action” and today’s “diverse workplace” impacted society?
Alexander: Affirmative Action and the goal of achieving a “diverse workplace” describes government policies that weaken America and make us less competitive in world markets. Affirmative Action and diversity are meant to replace merit as the guiding principle for determining who is chosen for positions of authority, responsibility, and power, as well as who is selected for admission to select colleges, universities, and professional schools. Affirmative Action was a policy enacted in 1969 by Alfred Blumrosen and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC was and still is a bureaucratic agency tasked with enforcing the 1964 Civil Rights Act – a monstrosity of a law reputedly as thick as the phonebook. The supposed purpose of this law is to ensure that race has no role in determining who is selected for key desirable jobs and positions but instead requires employers, admissions committees, and HR departments to not only consider race but give preference to black applicants over whites in determining who is hired or admitted.
Instead, following the regulations authored by Blumrosen, this so-called interpretive regulation actually contradicts the intent and plain meaning of the actual language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Blumrosen’s editorializing was an early example of the so-called “Chevron Doctrine” in action, which directs the Courts to give federal governmental agencies wide latitude in writing regs to implement practical enforcement of the statutes they are supposed to enforce. Tasked with enforcing the 1964 Civil Rights bill, Blumrosen and his compatriots apparently felt that the only way they could get blacks into high positions and selective schools was to discriminate against whites in favor of blacks. Once again, the true purpose of the Civil Rights Act was not to protect blacks from white racial discrimination but was to visit racial discrimination upon whites. Again, the law’s purpose was not so much pro-black as it was anti-white. he supposed high-mindedness of the Civil Rights Act was just a red herring intending to hide the true intentions of the liberals in charge. This not only deprives us generally of having the best and brightest in charge, but it also unconstitutionally deprives whites of equal protection under the law. It has resulted in a new regime of mediocrity that governs every major institution of our nation and is another key element in turning America into a third-world nation.
Edwards: The nuclear family is the building block of any healthy society. How have radical feminism and no-fault divorce further assaulted this institution?
Alexander: Just as the Civil Rights movement was not pro-black but anti-white, so also the feminist movement was not pro-woman but anti-male. To destroy America, the Cultural Marxists needed to destroy the American family. A closer look at feminism shows that it was primarily populated in its leadership by Jewish lesbians. Normal women know that they need men because not only are men essential to propagating humanity, but they are also a natural complement to women for successfully raising children to adulthood. Feminists are just another example of mankind presuming that they know better than God.
The no-fault divorce movement was just as essential to the destructive ends of the Cultural Marxist scheme to destroy God’s order and reduce white birth rates by making men and women competitors rather than partners. By loading the dice against men by making women’s interests paramount over those of men, no-fault divorce makes men wary of marriage, and sometimes understandably so. Any man ensnared in a court proceeding against a feminist woman and her feminist lawyer before a feminist judge will learn quickly that Mr. Lincoln didn’t free all the slaves. Men understand that no-fault divorce can destroy their lives if they marry the wrong woman. He can lose his fortune, his business, his peace of mind, his livelihood, his children, and even his freedom. Another problem with all of this is that we need our young adults to get married posthaste and have plenty of children. Be sure to pray for God’s guidance when choosing a wife.
Edwards: Give us a parting shot in summation.
Alexander: The great 19th-century Southern theologian R.L. Dabney once commented that “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition.” Victories for the good guys have been few and far between since Dabney’s day.
Many people retain a false impression about the true nature of many liberal initiatives like, for example, the Civil Rights movement. It is commonplace for many so-called liberals and even conservatives to imagine that the Civil Rights movement was and still is righteous and holy. In the Gospel of Matthew, the verses read, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” Apply this test to the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education Supreme Court decision, or the Civil Rights movement generally. Did public school racial integration in America produce good fruit or corrupt fruit? The answer is obvious. It ruined one of the best public education systems in the world and reduced it to one of the worst but like the emperor’s new clothes, this is a truth few in public life want to acknowledge publicly. It may seem to be paved with good intentions, but according to the old saying, so is the pathway to hell. How many of the sanctimonious politicians who celebrate the Brown decision each year send their children to the Washington D.C. public schools? Actions speak louder than words. Call out this hypocrisy every time you can. Elites can casually ruin your life while sparing themselves of the consequences.
Many Americans have concluded that it is easier to go along with the leftist flow of America. They are reluctant to be identified as opposing those supposedly on “the right side of history” and wish they could get on with their lives – making money, watching their favorite sports team, and drinking a beer. But the Left, running out of causes to promote, has decided to make “transgenderism” a civil right and force it down the throats of not just Americans but also the rest of the world. Liberalism is truly the modern face of evil. We must resist it and every part of their program with every fiber of our being. There is no good fruit falling from the evil tree of liberalism.
This article was originally published by The Barnes Review.
Some Jews in Labour Friends of Israel (image from 
Two Attorney Generals from one tiny minority: anti-White Jew Merrick Garland in America and anti-White Jew Richard Hermer in Britain (
Promise to reduce immigration, proceed to rocket immigration: how British “democracy” has repeatedly denied the will of the people
Koffee-kolored kritarch Letitia James celebrates sodomy in 2019 (image 
Hateful heresy: Whiteness is wicked, not wonderful (portrait is the 
The White genius Isaac Newton 
Leftist logic in action: Whites can never feel pride, only shame
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}