Hayden Williams

On February 19, conservative activist Hayden Williams (26) was tabling for Turning Point USA at UC Berkeley and training them, when an aggravated man named Zachary Greenberg (28) approached the TPUSA table and confronted Williams. This confrontation escalated into a physical assault on Williams, around 3:40 PM.

Tweets from Henry K. Lee directly following the assault: “Conservative activist Hayden Williams says he was punched at @UCBerkeley while training @TPUSA members & displaying sign reading, ‘Hate-crime hoaxes hurt real victims,’ referring to Jussie Smollett case. @UCPD_Cal seeking ID of attacker.”

Video of the assault via Campus Reform

Video of the assault via DC Examiner

Hayden Williams works for the Leadership Institute as “Director of Campus Engagement,” according to their website. This position is a part of LI’s “Campus Leadership Program,” as well as their “National Field Program.”

Right around the time of the incident, I gave the Leadership Institute a call, and was informed that their president, Morton Blackwell, would take an interview with me. He called me back about an hour later, and we talked about his aspirations and goals for the organization.

“I don’t want to build an empire,” Blackwell told me, “I want to build a movement.”

From the looks of it, Mr. Blackwell’s pursuit seems to have been a success. At CPAC last year, Donald Trump personally brought Hayden Williams onto the stage, and speaking to his Republican base, Trump said: “He took a hard punch in the face for all of us.” The crowd cheered.


Excerpt from Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke’s *The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology* (1985)

[Emphases my own.]

“This is an unusual history. Although it presents an account of past events relating to the origins and ideology of National Socialism in Germany, its proper subject is not the parties, policies and organizations through which men rationally express their interests in a social and political context. Rather, it is an underground history, concerned with the myths, symbols and fantasies that bear on the development of reactionary, authoritarian, and Nazi styles of thinking. It is also a marginal history, since its principle characters were mystics, seers and sectarians who had little to do with the outer realities of politics and administration. But such men had the imagination and opportunity to describe a dream-world that often underlay the sentiments and actions of more worldly men in positions of power and responsibility. Indeed, their abstruse ideas and weird cults anticipated the political doctrines and institutions of the Third Reich.

For historians trained exclusively in the evaluation of concrete events, causes, and rational purposes, this netherworld may seem delusive. They would argue that politics and historical change are driven only by real material interests. However, fantasies can achieve a causal status once they have been institutionalized in beliefs, values, and social groups. Fantasies are also an important symptom of impending cultural changes and political action. The particular fantasies discussed in this book were generated within an extreme right-wing movement concerned with the creation of a superman elite, the extermination of lesser beings, and the establishment of a new world-order. The nature of this movement has set it quite apart from the mainstream of rational politics in the twentieth century and demands answers relating to its deeper inspiration. An analysis of the fantasies underlying such a movement can provide new answers to old questions.

The following study traces these fantasies by presenting an historical account of the lives, doctrines and cult activities of the Ariosophists, namely Guido von List (1848-1919) and Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels (1874-1954) and their followers in Austria and Germany. The Ariosophists, initially active in Vienna before the first World War, combined German völkisch nationalism and racism with occult notions borrowed from the theosophy of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, in order to prophesy and vindicate a coming era of German world rule. Their writings described a pre-historic golden age, when wise gnostic priesthoods had expounded occult-racist doctrines and ruled over a superior and racially pure society. They claimed that an evil conspiracy of anti-German interests (variously identified as the non-Aryan races, the Jews, or even the early Church) had sought to ruin this ideal Germanic world by emancipating the non-German inferiors in the name of a spurious egalitarianism. The resulting racial confusion was said to have heralded the historical world with its wars, economic hardship, political uncertainty and the frustration of German world power. In order to counter this modern world, the Ariosophists founded secret religious orders dedicated to the revival of the lost esoteric knowledge and racial virtue of the ancient Germans, and the corresponding creation of a new Pan-German empire.

The Ariosophists were cultural pessimists. An obvious link exists between their fantasies and the grievances of German Nationalists in the Habsburg Empire of Austria-Hungary towards the end of the nineteenth century. Such factors as Catholicism, the rapid urban and industrial changes in society, the conflict of Slav and German interests in a multi-national state, the rise of the Austrian Pan-German movement under Georg Ritter von Schönerer, and the vogue of social Darwinism and its racist precepts were also crucial influences upon their thinking. The role and importance of occultism in their doctrines is principally explicable as a sacred form of legitimation for their profound reaction to the present and their extreme political attitudes. The fantasies of the Ariosophists concerned elitism and purity, a sense of mission in the face of conspiracies, and millenarian visions of a felicitous national future.

This introduction is intended to set the scene for a detailed examination of Ariosophy. The background against which Ariosophy arose was that of the contemporary nineteenth-century ideas of nationalism, anti-liberalism, cultural pessimism, and racism. Our point of departure will be the völkisch movement which combined these concepts into a coherent ideological system. In his study of the völkisch ideology, George L. Mosse has commented on the spiritual connotations of the word ‘Völk.’ During the nineteenth century this term signified much more than its straightforward translation ‘people’ to contemporary Germans: it denoted rather the national collectivity inspired by a common creative energy, feelings and a sense of individuality. These metaphysical qualities were supposed to define the unique cultural essence of the German people. An ideological preoccupation with the Völk arose for two reasons: firstly, this cultural orientation was a direct result of the delayed political unification of Germany; secondly, it was closely related to widespread romantic reaction to modernity.”

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke: *The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology,* New York University Press (1985) [Pgs. 1-3]

The Holocaust – An Introduction (I): Nazi Germany: Ideology, the Jews, and the World — Module 1: Why the Jews?

Taught by Professor Havi Dreifuss and Dr. Na’ama Shik

Week 1

Module 1: Why the Jews? Traditional Anti-Semitism as a Central Background

The Holocaust stemmed from the anti-Semitic Nazi ideology, and yet antisemitism preceded Nazi Germany by more than 2,000 years. Moreover, Jews had a special place in European culture for centuries before The Shoah took place. This prompts us with some questions:

  • “Why the Jews? Why were persons who preserved the Jewish religion or belonged to the Jewish people so deeply hated for centuries by so many?”

  • “What were the motives for this hatred? And did it change or develop throughout history?”

  • “And, above all, was there anything special about Nazi anti-Semitism which contributed to its genocidal character?”

The widespread existence of well-rooted anti-Jewish traditions in modern Europe served as a necessary yet insufficient condition for The Holocaust.

Professor Havi Dreifuss

What is Judaism?

“Judaism is an ancient monotheistic religion carrying unique traditions and customs which inspired other religions, mainly Christianity and Islam.” (Dreifuss)

Pupils and teachers in a traditional classroom (cheder), in Grondo, Poland. (Source: Yad Vashem)

“Today, Judaism includes many different notions– cultural, philosophical, and national– which are not of our interest in this course, but in its origin stands obligation to God and His commandments.” (Dreifuss)

The Yeshiva of “Chachame Lublin,” in Lublin, Poland. (Source: Yad Vashem)

“In Judaism, the followers, the Jews, are demanded to obey a detailed set of practical commandments which set the private and public life of the Jewish people and define society’s ethical norms.” (Dreifuss)

Prewar, The Marketplace, Suvainiskis, Lithuania. (Source: Yad Vashem)

“In ancient times, in the Pagan world, such conduct was considered to be very strange.” (Dreifuss)

Antisemitism In The Pagan World [Antiquity — 4th century]

Tacitus, the famous Roman historian, wrote in the beginning of the second century about the Jews:

Moses [the nation’s biblical leader], wishing to secure for the future of his authority over the nation, gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that is practiced by other men. Things sacred with us, with them have no sanctity, while they allow what with us is forbidden.

Tacitus, The Histories 1.2


Tacitus described Jews, as he grasped them, as evil strangers shaped by alien customs:

Among themselves, they are inflexibly honest, and ever ready to show compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals. They sleep apart.”

Tacitus, The Histories 1.2


Reading: http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.html

Even in the Hellenistic and Roman world, Jews were viewed as “others,” and hated and feared as such. They were non-Pagans in a world in which Paganism ruled. Their monotheistic beliefs and practical customs were comprehended as suspicious, if not dangerous.

With the rise of Christianities, whose origins are Jewish, and its expansion throughout Europe in the 4th century, this hatred magnified and even further integrated into the theological worldview of Christianity. 

Antisemitism in the Middle Ages [5th century — 15th century]

Along the Middle Ages, a negative image of Jews, as individuals, and as a collective, has been built. It started in antiquity, it continued during the scriptures of the fathers of the church, and it was made of a number of aspects: religious, economic, and racial.

Professor Dina Porat

Religious Facets of Antisemitism

Jews were accused of having crucified Jesus Christ, of not accepting him, of not understanding that he and Christianity are the source of light. Jews served as an antithesis to the Christian conception of the good. They were considered to be the evil ones—the dark ones—both physically and mentally.

The Last Supper – Carl Heinrich Bloch (late 19th century)
Jesus disputes with the Pharisees and is rejected, from the Bowyer Bible (19th century)
An illustration from a medieval manuscript. Top: Jews reject Jesus. Bottom: Jews are being burned at the stake.



Additionally, the figure of Judas Iscariot—the one who betrayed Jesus Christ for the sake of money—this figure has become the symbol and the incarnation of betrayal for money.

The Kiss of Judas, by Giotto di Bondone
Judas being paid thirty pieces of silver, for the betrayal of Jesus.

Economic Facets of Antisemitism

Jews served as a middle class between the lower and upper classes. The lower classes considered them exploiters, who exploit [the lower classes] in favor [of] and for the interest of the upper classes.

Professor Dina Porat

Thus, more negative stereotypes emerged: The ability of Jews to handle money cleverly, and exploit others. And to have mental capacities that others didn’t have—such as the ability of Jewish children, from an early age, to read and write, which was unknown so far in Europe.

All of this was leading to a notion that—taking all of these characteristics together—the Jews, dispersed among the nation, must have some goal, something in common leading them, and this is hurting the Christian body, and the Christian mind, in a multitude of ways. This paranoid is exemplified in ideas such as the blood libel, the lie that Jews collect gentile blood for Passover, and the lie that Jews were poisoning the wells.

Painting of blood libel in Sandomierz Cathedral

This [anti-Semitic caricature of ‘The Jew’] serves until today as a possible explanation for revolutions, wars, and other calamities, including financial crises, because ‘The Jew’ could be held responsible for events that no one took responsibility for.

Professor Dina Porat
From an 18th century etching from Brückenturn. Above: The murdered body of Simon of Trent. Below: The “Judensau.”


As one can see, Jews and Judaism per se became a symbol of something vile, and were identified with a mysterious and mystical satanic power throughout history. […]Anti-Jewish stereotypes became part of the Christian world and penetrated its folklore, culture, and literature, thus becoming part of the general culture of Western society.

Professor Havi Dreifuss


Modern Antisemitism / Racial Antisemitism [19th century — Present Day]

Although the traditional hatred of Jews was shaped and crystalized in a medieval Europe, as a religious hatred, it continued to exist, and even intensified, in modern times of secularity and enlightenment.

Professor Havi Dreifuss

Charles Darwin’s ideas about natural selection were co-opted by so-called “race scientists,” and people throughout Europe started to view Jews as unassimilable aliens. As modern Europe begins to take form, we see the concretization of antecedents which ultimately led Europeans to seek a solution to the “The Jewish Problem.”

Starting at the end of the 19th century, towards the beginning of the 20th century, we see across the European continent, from Paris to Berlin to Warsaw to St. Petersburg, the wider general collapse of the liberal democratic dream of Jews entering European society as equal participants and full citizens, and the rise of social intolerance, political hatreds, tensions, and anti-Semitic movements. In Paris in 1894, with the Dreyfus Affair; in Vienna in 1895 and 1897, with the election of Karl Lueger to the position of head of the city, mayor of the city; and Warsaw, with the national democratic movement led by Roman Dmowski in 1906, 1912– we see time and again that mass politics or modern politics across the European continent embrace, propagate, and manipulate anti-Jewish prejudices and attitudes and turn into anti-Semitic movements. Indeed, across the continent, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Europeans knowingly or willfully embraced anti-Semitic ideologies and politics towards the end of the 19th and the early 20th century.

Professor Scott Ury

The rise of this new racist pseudo-science rendered conversion—one of the old Christian “remedies” to the so-called “Jewish Problem”—worthless.

Starting with Darwin and other thinkers towards the end of the 19th and the early 20th century, anthropologists, biologists, social scientists began looking at society and humanity as distinct groups of peoples and races, groups that were clearly different from one another, and which at times could not be intermixed or could not really be assimilated. In many cases, these racial scientists focused their lens on Jews in Germany, across the continent, and began to produce a series of studies claiming and stating that Jews were not only different from other Europeans, but were ultimately indelible or unassimilable. From this conclusion, many then realized the position that Jews were not simply different or other than their neighbors or other Europeans– in Paris, in Vienna, in Berlin, or Warsaw– but that they were, in fact, a completely different type of society, one that could not be assimilated into the European body of nations.

Professor Scott Ury

“Redemptive Antisemitism” Emerges

One of the more troubling developments of this new ideology of “racial” antisemitism was “that this new ideology carried a promising message. It claimed that the misfortune of so many different social strata in modern Europe was a result of Jewish actions and could be solved accordingly. Economic problems, which were created by industrializations and urbanization, communism, or capitalism– all evil of the modern society stemmed from the Jews. That is, in the turmoil of economic and social modernization, which radically changed European society in the 19th century, anti-Semitism became a political tool.” (Dreifuss)

Excerpt from Nicholas Buccola’s *The Fire is Upon Us* (2019)

Buccola, Nicholas. “Joining the Battle” The Fire Is upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America. Princeton University Press, 2019, pp. 83–93.


Nicholas Buccola (beginning on pg. 83):

In the early years of National Review, Buckley and his colleagues developed a case against the civil rights movement that consisted of four major categories of argument: constitutionalist, authoritarian, traditionalist, and radical elitist. Each of these categories was undergirded by an assumption of cultural (if not congenital) white supremacy. According to the constitutionalist argument, the civil rights movement was to be resisted because it threatened the American constitutional system. The authoritarian response to black liberation struggle emphasized the threat it posed to the social order. According to traditionalist reasoning, the civil rights movement was to be resisted because it interfered with “the Southern way of life.” And finally, there was a great deal of racial elitism and paternalism, which was occasionally buttressed with crude racial pseudoscience, to be found in the pages of National Review. Racial elitists maintained that the civil rights movement was to be resisted because “advanced,” or “civilized,” white people have the right and duty to “civilize” the less “advanced,” or “civilized,” black people. In order to understand how Buckley thought about race, each of these categories must be considered in turn.

In the early days of National Review, Buckley and his writers often attacked the civil rights movement with a constitutionalist argument that emphasized the threat it posed to the ordered liberty promised by the American system of government. The basic assertion went something like this: the major aim of the American constitutional system is to safeguard personal freedom, and in order to achieve that goal, governmental power is carefully divided horizontally (between the branches of the federal government) and vertically (between federal, state, and local governments). In order to protect personal freedom in the long run, short-term political desires may have to be thwarted if their achievement would require disruption of this constitutional structure. As Buckley put it in one of the early issues of National Review, “Political decentralization” is a a”mechanical safeguard to freedom,” and it is not wise to tinker with constitutional machinery.

National Review‘s application of this argument to the civil rights movement varied depending on the most urgent controversy. Soon after the magazine was launched, Buckley and his fellow editors declared “the Supreme Court’s decision in the key segregation cases (Brown and Bolling) to be one of the most brazen acts of judicial usurpation in our history” because the Court had assumed a power (the determination of educational policy) that it did not rightfully possess. The editors of National Review were careful to point out that the usurpation in question was not merely horizontal in nature (i.e. , that this was an inappropriate action because it was taken by the judiciary), but more important, that it was a violation of the vertical division of power within the federal system. “We are [also],” they explained, “opposed to congressional intervention in the school segregation issue.”

Buckley’s constitutionalist critique of Brown anticipated many ideas that were defended in the March 1956 congressional resolution known as the “Southern Manifesto,” a document signed by nineteen senators (including every southern senator save for three) and seventy-seven members of the House of Representatives. The manifesto condemned the “unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases” as a “clear abuse of judicial power” that was “destroying the amicable relations that have been created through ninety years of patient efforts by good people of both races.” 

National Review gave the manifesto a stamp of approval a month later when it published a piece by Forrest Davis called “The Right to Nullify.” Davis—a former Washington Editor for the Saturday Evening Post and former adviser to Senator Robert Taft—called Brown an “edict” and “legislative fiat” that upset “centuries-old traditions” of educating children separately as well as protecting school auditoriums as safe spaces for the expression of white civic pride. Davis conceded that the “impulses” and “desires of Negroes” that moved the Court to act should not be minimized, but something larger was at stake: “the merits and bounds of federal power of the local concerns of citizens.” He dismissed as utopian nonsense the idea that there was a constitutional imperative to secure equality before the law, and concluded by asserting that white southerners had every right to feel “aggrieved” and “frustrated,” and that the “statesmen” who authored the Southern Manifesto and populated the Citizens’ Councils that had mobilized on the grassroots level were right to declare that they have a “substantial warrant for seeking to nullify the [Brown] decision short of rebellion.” 

Buckley’s approval of the Southern Manifesto is especially revealing of the fine line he was attempting to walk on race. The leaders of the southern resistance in Congress received considerable praise in National Review, mostly through the column of Washington correspondent Sam M. Jones, a veteran reporter from Virginia who was a former aide to Senator McCarthy, and considered to be a “faithful and understanding friend” by George Lincoln Rockwell, who would go on to become the “commander” of the American Nazi Party. As National Review’s Man on the Hill, Jones used his column—which was featured on the inside cover of the magazine from its founding until 1958—as a space to promote the ideas of arch segregationists in Congress. In early 1956, he wrote a glowing piece about Senator Thurmond of South Carolina, a Buckley family friend who received a gift subscription to National Review from Buckley Sr. In 1956, Will Buckley wrote to Thurmond to tell him that he would love the magazine because, among other things, “[Bill] is for segregation and backs it in every issue.” In his puff piece on Thurmond, Jones dubbed the senator “a latter day Patrick Henry” ready to lead another “Dixiecrat rebellion” against “the leadership of the Democratic Party” if it failed to resist “the edict that races must mix, in schools or elsewhere.” In case there was any doubt about what Jones had in mind when he wrote of “mixing,” he made himself entirely clear in a later column that featured an interview with Senator Russell of Georgia. The interview took place while Thurmond was on the Senate floor attempting to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (which will be discussed below). “Do the people of the South” Jones asked, “fear political domination by the Negro or miscegenation or both?” In response, Russell said white southerners feared both, but that “we feel even more strongly about miscegenation or racial amalgamation.” To help his readers connect the dots, Jones’s next question was, “Do you believe that school integration would be a step toward mass miscegenation in the South?” Russell responded, of course, in the affirmative.

Buckley’s own writing about these southern “statesmen” differed in spirit and substance from the fawning adulation offered by Jones. Buckley was uncomfortable with the inclusion of racially incendiary rhetoric about miscegenation in National Review. Indeed, in an interoffice memo to the other editors of the magazine, Buckley lamented the fact that Jones seemed to incorporate commentary on miscegenation into so many of his columns. Buckley seemed willing, though, to set these qualms aside because he viewed southern segregationists as potentially useful allies in the advancement of the conservative agenda. Perhaps earlier than most, he saw great potential in a “southern strategy” to advance the conservative cause. The southerners, Buckley reasoned, might be shoved into the conservative camp by the overreach of the Supreme Court. In a 1956 editorial called “Return to States’ Rights,” Buckley revealed his hopes for bringing southerners into the conservative coalition. The South, he wrote, had a long tradition of defending states’ rights from the “brilliant” pro-slavery politician John C. Calhoun to the present. The trouble with contemporary “states-righters,” Buckley contended, was they were inconsistent opportunists. They were solid states’ righters on the question of race, but “when federal government proposes to lavish its economic charms on a particular state, resistance vanishes.” Buckley expressed hope that the Court’s action in Brown “may have the effect of shaking inchoate states-righters out of their opportunistic stupor.” He was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their defense of states’ rights on racial matters, but he wanted them to embrace the states’ rights position in other areas as well. Now that federal intervention had “struck hard at traditions deeply rooted and very deeply cherished” in the South, Buckley hoped southerners might be pushed to embrace a “reasoned, principled and consistent” view of “the broad and—potentially—dynamic concept of decentralized political authority.”

Given the strategic value of southerners in Congress—something a young Arizona Senator named Barry Goldwater had noted in his diary as early as 1952—Buckley’s courtship is not too surprising. But in “The Right to Nullify,” Davis also singled out for praise the members of the Citizens’ Councils throughout the South. Wasn’t that a step too far for Buckley, who claimed to be trying to promote a “nonracist” conservative position on civil rights? After all, the Citizens’ Council movement—which had grown from a dozen members in Sunflower County, Mississippi, in the immediate aftermath of Brown to a large and powerful organization with chapters throughout the South—was widely understood to be the “uptown” or “Rotary Club” version of the Ku Klux Klan. The councilmen, as they liked to be called, talked “a great deal about the difference between their organization and the Ku Klux Klan,” reporter Dan Wakefield noted in the mid-1950s, but “the difference is slight.” The tall, mustachioed council leader William. J. Simmons—who had once studied French literature at the Sorbonne—explained their raison d’être in this way: “The South has a large nigger population,” and “anyone with two eyes in his head and roughly normal vision can look around him and see that there is a vast and permanent difference between the white and colored people.” This difference, Simmons argued, will “forever prohibit them from living on terms of equality in the same society.”

The councilmen took it to be their task to prevent the federal government from forcing southerners to accept “terms of equality” not of their choosing. The council, Simmons explained later, was there to stop “Big Government” from forcing the South down the road to “mongrelization.” According to Simmons, segregation was fully consistent with “terms of equality” they could accept: “Why should the nigger feel any more discriminated against than the white man for associating with his own kind? White people who are segregated don’t seem to resent it,” he said with a chuckle to an interviewer. At a council rally in Montgomery, Alabama, in February 1956, Mississippi senator James Eastland addressed a crowd of twelve thousand councilmen, many of whom were gripping a handbill in their sweaty palms that read, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all whites are created with certain rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of dead niggers.”

Councilmen were also quick to point out that the tactics they used—newsletters, television and radio programs, and economic pressure—were quite different from the means favored by the Klan. But again, Wakefield found these differences to be largely superficial:

The klansmen hid their faces with sheets and paraded their deeds in the open. The Councilmen hid many of their deeds, or at least many of the deeds their words would inspire, behind memos and mimeographs and parade their faces in the open. But whether the means be a memo or a fiery cross, the end is the same—a climate of distrust and fear that breeds unsolved murders and threats of more.

The last time Wakefield had been in Mississippi, it was to cover the Till trial. He had seen firsthand what the climate of distrust and fear had wrought.

In summer 1958, James Jackson Kilpatrick, a National Review contributor and Virginia newspaper editor who has rightly been dubbed one of American history’s leading “salesmen for segregation,” put Buckley in touch with Simmons, who was the editor and publisher of the Citizens’ Council newsletter, the Citizen. Kilpatrick, who by then had close working relationships with both men, thought the match could be beneficial for both the council and National Review. If a relatively mainstream conservative organ like National Review provided any positive press for the council, it might help the organization muster greater credibility on the national scene. For National Review, which was struggling financially, a connection with the council held out the promise of more subscribers and donors, among other things. On July 10, 1958, Kilpatrick wrote to Buckley with some exciting news:

Bill Simmons, the major domo of the entire Citizens Council movement in the South, happened to pass through Richmond a week or so ago, and came by the house for dinner. In the course of our conversation I brought up National Review‘s troubles, and asked if he could promote NR in his editorial columns. He said he would be glad to, and volunteered to work out some arrangement with you for use of their 65,000 name mailing list if it would be of help to you.

A few weeks later, after a phone conversation with Buckley, Simmons agreed to send the mailing list to National Review. In addition, Simmons sent Buckley a letter in which he praised National Review for “making a highly significant and material contribution to the cause of political and social sanity.” Along with the letter, Simmons provided Buckley with copies of recent editions of the Citizen so he would be able to see firsthand what the organization was all about. These editions—like all other editions of the periodical—were devoted almost exclusively to advancing the segregationist cause through editorials, letters, and racist cartoons. In his response to Simmons, Buckley said he was grateful for the support and the mailing list, and looked forward to reaching out to the supporters of the Citizens’ Council “only because I feel that our position on states’ rights is the same as your own and that we are therefore, as far as political decentralization is concerned, pursuing the same ends.”

There are a couple of ways to interpret Buckley’s cozying up to the Citizens’ Council. One explanation is that whatever qualms he had about the council’s racism were trumped by his desire to use its mailing list to increase the circulation of his magazine. This explanation cannot be dismissed altogether since the magazine was struggling to stay afloat, but there is more to the story than that. Perhaps more important, Buckley had developed a deep respect for Kilpatrick so when the Virginian offered his endorsement of the council, he was likely persuaded that the alliance would be worthwhile. Buckley and Kilpatrick met in 1956 when Henry Regnery—the publisher of Buckley’s first two books—sent Buckley a copy of Kilpatrick’s states’ rights manifesto, The Sovereign States, which Regnery published as well. Regnery introduced Kilpatrick to Buckley as “one of the new leaders in southern conservatism and states’ rights.” Indeed, Kilpatrick—or “Kilpo” as he was known to friends and associates—had used his perch as the editor of the Richmond News Leader to become, in the words of historian George Nash, “the principal journalistic and constitutional theorist of [the ‘massive resistance'” campaign that had emerged in Virginia in response to Brown. It did not take long for Buckley and Kilpatrick to realize that they were ideological soul mates who could trust and rely on one another in their professional lives. When, in 1957, Kilpatrick was looking to hire a new associate editor to work for him at the Richmond News Leader, he reached out to Buckley for a recommendation: “What I need is a writer with conservative views,” he wrote to his friend, “who is ‘right’ on the school question in the South, and on matters of constitutional government.” Buckley later called Kilpatrick “the primary editorialist on our side of the fence. . . . In fact, I sometimes jocularly refer to him as ‘Number One.'” Kilpatrick was, in sum, the embodiment of what Buckley took to be a responsible conservative position on civil rights; he was deeply committed to the segregationist cause, but instead of defending it with demagogic rhetoric, he offered relatively sophisticated jurisprudential arguments.

It was for this reason that Buckley relied on Kilpatrick to offer National Review‘s showcase response to the 1957 Little Rock school integration crisis, which became a symbol of the white southern resistance to the implementation of Brown. In the face of a federal court order demanding the integration of Central High School, Arkansas governor Orval Faubus called in the National Guard to prevent black students from attending. The nine students, once turned away, were met with angry white mobs in the streets surrounding Central High School. Some in the mob became violent and assaulted a black journalist who was there to cover the story. In response to this conflagration of racial tension, President Eisenhower attempted to persuade Faubus to relent, and when he proved to be intransigent, the president ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the US Army to escort the black students into the school.

“The nine Negro pupils,” Kilpatrick declared in his National Review essay on the crisis, “are not really very important in all this.” What really mattered, he insisted, were the “two great [jurisprudential] conflicts” at the heart of the controversy: “a conflict of powers” and “a conflict of rights.” The conflict of powers issue, Kilpatrick claimed, was a clear-cut one: in the face of angry mobs unwilling to accept the integration of the “Little Rock Nine,” the government’s primary obligation was to “keep the peace,” and the “police power” belonged primarily to the states, not the federal government.

Kilpatrick’s discussion of the “question of rights” in the Little Rock case takes us to the second category of argument emphasized by National Review on civil rights: authoritarianism. In this context, authoritarianism means a decided preference for the exercise of authority in pursuit of some political goal (e.g., social order) over competing claims of individual rights. Although National Review‘s constitutionalist arguments offered in opposition to the civil rights movement were usually framed in broadly libertarian terms, the magazine’s libertarianism had its limits. More specifically, when the freedom of the individual (especially when that individual was a person of color) was thought to be a threat to their preferred social order, Buckley and most of his writers in this period took a decidedly authoritarian turn. Kilpatrick’s language in the Little Rock piece made this entirely clear. On one side of the conflict, “the people have a community right to peace and tranquility, the right to freedom from tumult and lawlessness.” Just so there was no doubt about how this right applied to the case at hand, Kilpatrick added, “The white parents of the South have some rights relating to the quiet education of their children under surroundings which they desire.” On the other side of the conflict, “the Supreme Court has created certain ‘rights’ for Negro students . . . [including] the right to attend non-segregated public school.” Kilpatrick insisted that this was at best a pseudo right because the Court did a “lawless thing” by creating a right nowhere to be found in the Constitution. “Race-mixing of certain schools,” Kilpatrick concluded ominously, “now leads to knifings, dynamitings [sic], and other forms of violence. . . . By far the worst is yet to come.”

There is a clear tension between the apparently libertarian framing of the constitutionalist argument—political decentralization is a safeguard of individual liberty—and the antilibertarian implications of an authoritarian position. In order to address this, Buckley complemented the common authoritarian rejoinder—there can be no liberty without social order—with two other categories of argument: traditionalism and racial elitism. These categories are crucial to making sense of Buckley’s early views on race.

Log 1: The Republican Party & Far-Right Extremists

1. “Local Idaho GOP urges US to let in Austrian neo-Nazi leader who was in contact with the mass killer in the New Zealand mosque attacks. Why let him in? The neo-Nazi’s girlfriend, a far-right YouTube pundit, wants to marry him there.”

2. “Rep. Steve King met with members of a far-right Austrian party with historical Nazi ties during a European trip to Auschwitz, financed by a Holocaust memorial group.”

3. “Matt Gaetz, a first-term Florida Republican, insisted that he gave the [State of the Union Address] ticket to Charles C. Johnson only by happenstance, telling the Daily Beast that the notorious alt-right troll just ‘showed up at my office’ on the day of the speech”

4. “[Former DHS official] Ian M. Smith had in the past been in contact with a group that included known white nationalists as they planned various events.”

5. “Giuliani appeared next to sanctioned Russian official Sergei Glazyev, a man with a history of working closely with some of the U.S.’s most notorious anti-Semites. The pair were on a panel at the Eurasian Week conference, an annual affair dedicated to the future of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which includes Russia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Belarus.”

6. “Miami Republican chairman [Nelson Diaz] reportedly planned Pelosi protest with Proud Boys”

7. “Two Republican congressmen [Phil Roe and Andy Harris] met with noted Holocaust denier and white nationalist Chuck Johnson to discuss ‘DNA sequencing’…”

8. “Email from 2007 ties Trump adviser Stephen Miller to neo-Nazi Richard Spencer”

9. “In a Snapchat video Juan Pablo Andrade, a former Trump campaign adviser who now works for the pro-Trump dark money group America First Policies, expresses support for Nazis, saying his only criticism is that they didn’t do more.”

10. “A Los Angeles attorney who advocates for the creation of a ‘white ethno-state’ is on an official list of Donald Trump’s Republican convention delegates published Monday night by state election officials.”

11. “Self-described Nazis and white supremacists are running as Republicans across the country. The GOP is terrified.”

12. “More than 56K People Voted for Holocaust Denier in Illinois’ 3rd District”

13. “Is a Neo-Nazi Running as a Republican for the U.S. Senate in California?”

14. “Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins’ Auschwitz video draws criticism”

15. “GOP Senate candidate Lou Barletta did interview in 2006 with Holocaust-denying publication”

16. “Criminal Court Judge Jim Lammey recently went on Facebook and posted a link to an article by notorious Holocaust denier David Cole.”

17. “Eight out of the 10 most influential accounts for the Twitter discussion around the Great Replacement are French, including several high-profile, far-right politicians. The two non-French accounts on the list are the extreme-right site Defend Europa and, horrifyingly, the president of the United States.”

18. “A number of former FAIR employees now hold positions in the Trump administration. The organization, which was founded in 1979 by the white nationalist and eugenicist John Tanton, is designated an anti-immigration hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

19. “Student booted from Turning Point USA chapter for chanting ‘white power’ in video”

20. “Manhattan Republicans Are Defending Their Invitation To A Violent Far-Right Group”

21. “Roger Stone’s Proud Boys ‘Volunteers’ Have Been Defending Him Online After The Judge Entered A Gag Order”

22. “Emails Show DHS Official Katie Gorka Suggested Anti-Fascists Are ‘The Actual Threats’”

23. “White Nationalists And Nativists Want Americans To Pay To Keep America White”

24. “Clay Higgins was elected to his second term in the U.S House of Representatives. In 2017, Higgins attended an event hosted by the antigovernment extremist group Oath Keepers whose founder Stewart Rhodes boasted of Higgins’ attendance, writing, ‘you will be among thousands of like-minded American patriots from many groups and many states, with some excellent speakers.'”

25. “Young Fascists on Campus: Turning Point USA and Its Far-Right Connections”

26. “U.S. President Donald Trump caused a media storm when he retweeted three anti-Muslim videos posted by the deputy head of the far-right group Britain First. Jayda Fransen, a former recruitment consultant with a conviction for religiously aggravated harassment behind her, is a high-profile member of the ultra-nationalist grouping that likes to warn of an imminent ‘third world war’ with Islam.”

27. “Reddit User Behind Trump’s anti-CNN Video Has History of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia”

28. “Trump says he ‘wouldn’t be surprised’ if unfounded conspiracy theory about George Soros funding caravan is true”

29. “Trump’s ‘Caravan’ Is a Made-up Monster Fabricated by the Far Right”

30. “Trump’s Caravan Hysteria Led to This”

31. “Donald Trump pardons Joe Arpaio, former sheriff convicted in racial profiling case”

32. “President Trump has indicated that he is considering pardons for several American military members accused or convicted of war crimes, including high-profile cases of murder, attempted murder and desecration of a corpse, according to two United States officials.”

33. “Steve Bannon’s alt-right academy — and one village’s fight to stop it”

34. “Donald Trump Jr. retweets psychologist who believes Jews manipulate society”

35. “Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled White Nationalism Into The Mainstream”

36. “Right Side Broadcasting, The ‘Unofficial Version Of Trump TV,’ Forced To Apologize For Contributor’s Call To ‘Kill The Globalists’ At CNN”

37. “Donald Trump National Security Adviser Mike Flynn Has Called Islam ‘a Cancer'”

38. “Flynn retweets anti-Semitic remark”

39. “PHOTOS: Leaked Documents Show Government Tracking Journalists, Immigration Advocates”

40. “Border Patrol Union Endorses Extremist Video Featuring White Nationalists”

41. “Here’s the Memo That Blew Up the NSC”

41. “Donald Trump campaign tweets photo with Nazi soldiers – then leads polls”

42. “Trump says he wouldn’t have removed ‘Star of David’ tweet”

43. “How Trump Took Hate Groups Mainstream

44. “An email sent from the Justice Department to all immigration court employees this week included a link to an article posted on a white nationalist website thatdirectly attacks sitting immigration judges with racial and ethnically tinged slurs,’ according to a letter sent by an immigration judges union and obtained by BuzzFeed News.”

45. “Arizona border agent pleads guilty to intentionally running over migrant near Nogales”

46. “WA House fired Shea aide after ‘bloodshed or Liberty state’ rally speech”

47. “A Louisiana Parish Jailed a U.S. Citizen for Being Latinx. We’re Suing.”

48. “‘No Blame?’ ABC News finds 36 cases invoking ‘Trump’ in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults.”

49. “Republican discussed violent attacks and surveillance with rightwingers”

50. “Trump Judge Pick Spread Anti-Muslim Pig Blood Bullet Myth”

51. “Alabama Holocaust Commission condemns Brooks’ use of ‘big lie'”

52. “Chair of the Multnomah County Republicans Will Represent Patriot Prayer Leader in Civil Lawsuit”

53. “Spokane GOP chair hosts white supremacist James Allsup at event, accuses media of ‘label lynching'”

54. “U.S. Government Plans to Collect DNA From Detained Immigrants

55. “Secret chats involving Republican lawmaker reveal fresh evidence of plots and paranoia

56. “Stephen Miller’s Affinity for White Nationalism Revealed in Leaked Emails

57. “GOP Senate candidate Lou Barletta did interview in 2006 with Holocaust-denying publication” (follow up here: http://archive.fo/wip/A3ZLz)

58. “Steve Bannon Secretly Met with Alexander Dugin in 2018: The Two Nationalist Firebrands United for a Summit in Rome.

59. “Madison Cawthorn’s Racist Website: GOP wunderkind attacks opponent’s attempt to “ruin white males.”