Jared Taylor and Sam Dixon dissect Carlton Putnam's 1961 Race and Reason, arguing that forced integration since the 1950s caused societal collapse. They claim biological differences are immutable, citing failed policies like busing and fair housing laws which allegedly triggered white flight and urban decay. The speakers allege liberal elites prioritize feelings over facts, accusing figures like Thurgood Marshall of falsifying evidence to justify Brown v. Board. Ultimately, the discussion suggests that ignoring genetic realities in favor of political correctness has led to demographic shifts and economic loss, validating Putnam's warnings against state-mandated mixing. [Automatically generated summary]
Ladies and gentlemen, excited is the wrong word because today you have two of the heavyweights coming together to join what I believe is going to be a great addition to the Radio Renaissance Library.
This is Paul Kersey, and I'm joined by the editor of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor, and longtime speaker at the New Century Foundation conferences, Sam Dixon, to bring to you what is tentatively going to be called the White Man's Library, if no one objects to that.
Jared, Sam, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Dixon, good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Thank you for having us on.
Well, we spoke last week, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Dixon and I did, about Madison Grant's conquest of the continent and put things into perspective about that book coming out in 1933, the amount of censorship it received, but how important it was and how important it is to go back and look at it.
And today we're going to talk about a book that I believe is in many ways just as relevant for contemporary times as it was when it came out due to just the incredible way it looks at various aspects of the problem of forced state integration and the consequences of it when you refuse to accept the biological reality of racial differences.
And I'm referring to Carlton Putnam's book, Race and Reason, A Yankee View, as well as the follow-up, gentlemen, race and reality, a search for solutions.
Mr. Taylor, Mr. Dixon, jump in and tell us about Mr. Putnam, who he was and why he is of such importance even to this day.
Well, I will barge in first, and I will say that he is relevant today because he explained the racial problem in America in a way that I think is extremely clear and relevant, what, 40 years, 60 years later.
He sketched out what I consider to be the basic elements of the problems, the biological substrate of the problem, in a way that was extremely convincing, fact-based, not the least bit hysterical or mean-spirited.
And unlike a number of books that date back to the earlier period of white advocacy, I think this book has aged hardly at all.
There's very little in it that I would consider out of date.
And so I think it is remarkable to have something that is so relevant to our times now that was written back when it came out.
The original publication date was 1961.
And as I say, I find practically nothing in it that's out of date.
How about you, Mr. Dixon?
What do you find especially relevant or impressive about this book?
Well, I think the book itself, it's concise.
You can read it quickly.
That's something that there's a mentor of mine named Jared Taylor, who commented on the book we were writing, Race and the American Project, or something like that.
And I was involved in that and wrote the chapter on race in the South.
And this mentor of mine said the book is so long, no one will read it.
And I learned my lesson on that.
But the book is about the size, about half again the size of a reader's digest.
Race and reason is.
It's crisp.
It's to the point.
It makes the point.
It cuts the mustard.
It lays it out in obvious and very clear terms.
And it was not written by a Southerner.
He calls it, I mean, the subtext, the subtitle is it, A Yankee View.
And like our leader, Mr. Taylor, he was the graduate of an Ivy League school, which gives him, like many people, gave him credentials.
And it's a great book, and it points out the obvious.
And that's it.
He also is a major figure of American finance and business.
A Yankee View on Racial Truth00:06:18
He was a co-founder of Delta Airlines, which I'm sure today would make that very woke airline horrified that had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in reparations to Black Lives Matter.
If that were to come out, but I don't care.
I'm happy to bring it out.
Well, that's true.
He attended Princeton.
He was a class of 1924, and then he went to Columbia Law School.
He graduated from that in 1932, but he never did practice law.
He built up a small airline in California into something that was called Chicago and Southern, which later became part of Delta Airlines.
That was in 1953, and he served as chairman of Delta and remained on the board until he died in 1998.
Something else about him, that he was a great admirer of Theodore Roosevelt.
And in 1958, he completed what was supposed to be the first of a three-volume biography of it.
It's still a highly acclaimed sort of first-part biography of Roosevelt.
But then he gave that up because he thought the whole question of race was more important than writing the definitive biography of Theodore Roosevelt.
And that shows you what he found so important.
And I think it's a testimony to his realization of how important the racial question was.
And this was well, this was even before the Civil Rights Act of 19, I'm sorry, the Immigration Act of 1965 that changed our immigration policy.
I have so much respect and admiration for the people early on who saw the terrible suicidal things we were doing, realized they were important, and devoted their attention and effort full time into averting this catastrophe.
Well, real quick, as you point out, Mr. Taylor, this was published in 1961, a full three years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And it was published, what, 13 years after Shelley v. Kramer, the decision by the Supreme Court that basically ended Freedom of Association.
It was, what, 58 is a year you also talk about when Truman integrated the United States military, which is something you've always, you've privately told me you're befuddled by.
Was there a demand for it?
And so then obviously in the 50s, you had Brown v. Board in 1954, 55.
54.
It was 54.
Yeah.
And, but at the same time, this, he represents one of those few men, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Taylor, who had been so successful in the business realm and who decided to, as you said, Mr. Taylor, basically jettison all of that aside to embark upon this crusade of truth and a very difficult realm of racial consciousness.
Another thing that really opened his eyes was in 1957 when President Eisenhower mobilized the 101st airborne to integrate LaRock High School.
He thought this was an absolute outrage.
He thought that was unconstitutional.
It was a terrible, terrible imposition of a horrible policy on the South, the people of the South.
And he wrote an open letter to the president.
And he wrote and explained why this was wrong, why the Southerners understood black people better than Yankees did for the most part.
And this was immensely, immensely popular in the South.
And the Citizens' Council distributed it as a pamphlet.
He even took out an ad in the New York Times and ran it as a paid advertisement.
But that was, this really opened his eyes.
And he realized, well, the Brown decision, too.
He thought the Brown decision, which was really based on just mush, not on law by any stretch of the imagination.
And this is even recognized at the time.
I remember looking at the New York Times headline, even the New York Times, back in 1954, it said a decision based on hearts and minds rather than law, or something like that.
I'm paraphrasing, but it's pretty close.
Even the New York Times recognized there was no basis in law for this.
And of course, the New York Times thought there might have been plenty of basis in morality and good thinking and liberalism.
But that was the key understanding of Carlton Putnam, that not only did this have no basis in law, it ran directly in the face of all of the scientific and sociological and historical evidence we have.
As I say, I can't help a deep admiration of people, even in those early years, who saw the terrible precedent that these decisions were making.
Yeah, before we get to Mr. Dixon, just to read from Race and Reason, there's a great little passage where he writes, no man of goodwill, once he was awakened to the truth, could tolerate Little Rock.
And he went on to talk about you can call whatever you want this movement to be, whether it's communism, Marxism, socialism, equalitarianism.
Basically, it was just fundamentally this anti-white movement to destroy the ability of freedom of association and the ability to discriminate.
And that was the chief, that was one of the chief moments in the United States history that Putnam realized it's we're we're heading down a dark path.
And in this late hour of 2026, I don't think there's anything that could dissuade me that he was wrong.
That's the thing.
These people, on the basis of evidence, which, from our point of view, seems somewhat scanty.
There were certainly indications, but we now have so much evidence.
The verdict is in this American experiment, so-called, of integrating races, pretending race doesn't exist.
We declare it a failure.
They saw it a failure long before, I think, if I'd been alive and a sentient human being in 1954, would I have understood this?
The Verdict on Race Integration00:02:38
I doubt it.
I think a great many people didn't.
But he wasn't even a southerner.
And I think that adds to his wisdom and perspicacity.
Mr. Dixon, you've always pointed out that this was an experiment that was tried and forced upon the American people.
When I say American people, gentlemen, by the way, that's synonymous with white.
I don't think you need to say white American.
That's redundant.
So, you know, you've always said, sir, it's an experiment.
We now have conclusive evidence that the thesis that these individuals had turned out to be wrong with conclusive evidence.
Well, I think that what, you know, Jared is a recovering liberal, which is what we need.
Mr. Taylor, I should say, is a recovering liberal.
Both of us are.
No, I'm not a recovering liberal.
No, no, I meant Jared and Mr. Taylor.
I thought that this was craziness when I first started hearing it in school.
It's just obviously untrue.
But truth doesn't matter to liberals.
Truth just really does not matter.
We have to create our minds about that.
You can't realize that enough.
They don't even say that something is untrue.
The adjective they use is it's insensitive.
Not that it's untrue, but it's insensitive.
And I'm sure that when Mr. Taylor was telling us what the New York Times said about having no basis in law, but being heart felt or whatever, that's just typical liberal psychobabble.
It's all a matter of morality and how they feel and dreams that they have.
And the fact is that truth is what matters.
When you depart from truth and you start lying to people and lying to them, you tell somebody that's got a tumor, oh, there's nothing wrong with you, just drink some grape juice or something.
That may be sweet and nice at the moment, but it's not what they need to hear.
You've got a tumor and you're in bad shape and you have to go into surgery.
So I believe in truth.
Liberals don't believe in truth.
They don't believe in facts.
And these books are about facts.
The facts that really should be obvious to anyone who has a room temporary IQ and doesn't live in a world of a religious world of dreams and sensitivity and all the things that they believe.
So, yeah, we've got the facts on our side.
The Truth About Strom Thurmond00:12:12
These egalitarians, and the whole idea was crazy to very begin with, that human beings are different from dogs or cats that have different subspecies that are very different from each other.
That a Persian cat is not different from a Siamese, a Chihuahua is not different from a Great Dane.
And then they show up and say, well, all men are created equal because Thomas Joseph wrote that.
And it sounds sweet.
It sounds good.
Why not say the cow jumped over the moon if that makes you feel good?
But anyway, the evidence in the laboratory is entirely on our side, except for a handful of Marxist cranks that tried to shut up people like Charles, I can't think of his last name now, but Charles Murray and the others, they just lost.
The human genome has shown heredity is vastly important.
It's more important than environment.
Both are important.
If you'd taken Mozart and locked him in a closet from age two to eight, he would never have been a great musician.
But no amount of music lessons would ever make Sam Dixon a composer on the level of Mozart.
I just don't have it in me.
And it doesn't bother me to say he's my superior.
Without people superior to me, I couldn't enjoy his music.
And I don't hate him.
I don't resent him.
I don't want him killed off by the Bolsheviks did.
They wiped out the Russian aristocracy that brought out Barbaross Tchaikovsky and the others.
I don't resent period people like Mozart.
But no amount of training, environmental help would ever turn most of us into Mozarts.
Probably not one of us into a Mozart.
Well, maybe you could do something, but I know my limitations.
I'm not falsely modest or falsely proud.
But anyway, it's just amazing this crazy ideques, as the French call it, that possesses the chattering classes in our society, the journalists.
And of course, unlike Mr. Taylor, I have a very negative view of these liberals.
I think most of them are deliberate liars, and he thinks that they are well-meaning but deceived.
I don't think so.
I think most of them are concerned with putting groceries in the pantry and saying the things that will get them elevated in the media.
I don't think the truth really matters to them.
Well, Mr. Dixon, if you turn to page 113 of Race and Reason, you will find the following passage written by Carlton Putnam.
I am convinced the majority of Northerners are sincere humanitarians who are being unconsciously victimized by a hoax.
Our work is to enlighten them.
I believe that is still the case.
Most of them are deceived by what is in fact a hoax, and I suspect they genuinely believe the foolishness that they have been taught to believe.
And again, our job is to enlighten them and not demonize them.
But that was sort of an ambush against your views on this.
I think, by and large, they are well-meaning.
They genuinely think that this is how you bring about a better world.
But I think there was an aspect, and Mr. Dixon, you will understand this element of it better than I.
But one of the things that Carlton Putnam criticized the South for doing was trying to defend its institutions, namely segregation, on the basis of states' rights rather than on the basis of history, sociology, and biology.
Absolutely.
Yes, it was utterly futile.
He says it was science and not the Constitution that would protect whites from miscegenation and chaos.
I have never understood why Southerners were so reluctant to bring up science.
Do you have any insight on that problem, having lived through that period yourself as a sentient Southerner?
Well, I do have insights on it, and I'll say that Putnam's absolutely right.
And I thought the same thing as a youngster.
I would watch television.
I watched debates between segregationists running for public office in the South.
And it's topic, none of them are defending it on any kind of basis except it's our way of life.
And they would say things like, our Negroes love our way of life.
The obvious question was, well, then why don't you want them to vote?
Clearly, they did not love our way of life.
They were terrible.
I don't know of a single spokesman, the South, that was really very effective.
Maybe Harry Bird, but like Putnam said, they were quibbling over legal issues.
And once you start doing that, you've lost.
If people are convinced that something is a good policy, and when someone's saying, well, not only is it a good policy, it's legal.
Naturally, people are going to want to believe that.
They're not going to want to believe someone who said, well, it really isn't bad, but our way of life doesn't allow that.
That argument is dead on arrival.
But the reason, I think there's several reasons for it.
One, I think that most of our leaders didn't believe it.
I think most of them have been co-opted.
Most of them were interested in money.
They were interested in.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
I'm talking about southerners at the time who opposed integration.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
I'm afraid.
I think I know where Mr. Dixon's going with this one.
Well, we were led by, we were, I like to say, I think the Greeks said that you want better, better an army of deer led by a lion than an army of lions led by a deer.
Unfortunately, we were an army of deer led by people who were even weaker than we were.
And that didn't work.
And part of the reason was, a very basic reason, I felt this myself.
I feel it to this day.
As mean as I am, and as different as I am from Mr. Taylor, I don't like to sit down and tell a black person, well, the reason the gap between you and my race is that you're inferior.
I don't like doing that.
And back then, people had much more dealings with blacks than they have now.
One of the delusions that people have is that somehow mixing the races in the school promoted more social equality.
It had the exact opposite effect.
Among white people, it used to be that the surgeon's son played baseball with the bricklayer's son in the public schools.
That's all gone now.
There's far more class separation.
And there was much more racial mixing there.
Now, with air conditioning and computers and microwave ovens and all this sort of thing, there's much less contact between blacks and whites.
But back then, you had a lot of contact, and Southerners were primarily Christian.
They were taught to be nice to people, and they felt great affection for the blacks they interacted with.
My grandmother had a servant named Colada, and Colada, my grandmother's parents had owned Colada's parents.
But there was not only did my grandmother feel great affection for Colada, but Colada, despite what we're told about by people at Harvard University today, Colada had a great affection for my grandmother.
When my grandmother's funeral took place, Colada led the other blacks to my grandmother's coffin and she touched a wet handkerchief to my grandmother's coffin.
But you didn't want to tell people like that.
Well, let's talk about science.
Let's talk about where you are on the evolutionary scale.
So that was a big factor.
And then the other, like I said, was that our leaders were corrupt.
You know, we do not draw the right conclusions from things.
You know, people are not drawing the right conclusions from the Epstein files.
They want sort of an okra winfrey chatter about gossip about this guy or that guy and whether or not he had sex with the underage girls and all this sort of stuff.
That's not the issue.
The issue is the overall thing of what it shows of how corrupt the ruling class our country is and the fact that they're being blackmailed by foreign agencies.
That's the real lesson.
And it's the same with Strom Thurmond and his black baby.
That is an issue that has been completely dropped and they never read strong people at the time.
But Strom Thurmond had an illegitimate black child before he ever entered politics.
And they knew about it.
The NAACP knew about it.
The Justice Department knew about it.
The FBI knew about it.
The presidents knew about it.
The media knew about it.
When they broke the story after Thurmond's death in order to further demoralize Southern whites, NPR featured one of their reporters who had been employed by their first outlet that was open in South Carolina in 72, who said, oh, yeah, we knew all about that.
Well, do you think they suppressed it because they wanted to be nice to Thurmond's family?
Maybe Mr. Taylor believes that liberals are kindly like that, but I think they're pretty damn ruthless and mean.
Well, what it shows us is Strom Thurmond was never able to fight them.
He was hailed as the leader of the thin gray line in the Senate, the spokesman of the segregationists.
He could never be legitimate.
They had him almost literally by the short hairs.
He could not be legitimate.
That's what it's.
Well, but he certainly at one time was saying things in defense of whites, in defense of the South, and in defense of segregation.
Even if in the back of his mind he knew that there was this potential bombshell against him.
He said those things.
He said those things which at that very moment could have been blown up by publicizing the fact that he had a mulatto child, an illegitimate mulatto child.
But he nevertheless said them.
And I don't see why, in your argument, the potential for blackmail would have become less and less and less as time went on.
No, you're so good-hearted, but you just want to hurt yourself.
It makes you effective.
I can't be effective because I'm critical and harsh.
But no, people like Thurman have to make the right noises.
I think Thurman.
Kim Philby, the famous communist spy, he made noises of how much he hated communism, how awful he couldn't have risen to betray Great Britain had he told the truth.
And they have to make these statements against the people.
They're always subject to being called in by President Kennedy or President Johnson and told, well, you need to drop this.
It made the opposition ineffectual.
The things the South could have done that were never done that could have been effective and they didn't work done.
I think it is probably the case that Strom Thurmond shifted his ground because he realized the ground was shifting under it already.
And he went against what he knew deep down to be his principles.
But he did this not because he was afraid of blackmail, but because he just didn't have the backbone he needed to have.
And so my suspicion is that he just went with the flow after he realized that he was essentially a one-man army trying to fight the multitudes.
I don't think it was the threat of blackmail that really changed his position.
Race and Reason's Hierarchy00:13:26
But be that as it may.
I know you believe that, and I don't scorn you for believing that, but I think it's a feature of your kindly nature.
I don't think somebody that had a black, illegitimate child who was known to have done so by the NAACP and by the FBI, by Hoover, the FBI, the president, All these other people that were working to mix this out knew about that before 1948, when he first got elected and first ran for public office.
But if that were a fear, if that were… I don't think someone like that can ever be legitimate.
Well, but if the fear of that made him change his mind 20 or 30 years later, he would not have started out saying the thing.
But in any case, this is really a minor quibble.
Back to something you said earlier about the reluctance of southern whites to say, well, look, there's this 15-point gap in average IQ.
I think that probably had a great deal to do with it.
My grandfather, for example, this is a kind of an interesting story about me and Carlton Kuhn, in a way.
When I was growing up in my father's study, there was a copy of Race and Reason on his bookshelf.
And I remember noticing that title many times.
I never took it down from the shelf and held it in my hands.
But the name of it stuck in my mind.
I didn't really have any idea what it was about.
And my father was very much a liberal.
And later on in my 30s, I discovered Race and Reason.
And I read it with great interest and admiration.
And I asked my father, Dad, why did you happen to have that book in your office?
He said, well, the fact is, his father, my grandfather, had so admired this book that he bought copies of it and he sent them to all his children and many of his friends and relations.
Now, I look back on that now and I think, gosh, if as a 12-year-old I had had the sense to read Race and Reason, I would now be as wise as Sam Dixon.
It would have saved me 20 years of groping around.
But my grandfather, in my contact with him, he never would have said anything that was insulting my entire grandparents' generation, both my grandmothers, both my grandfathers.
As I got older, I got to know one of my surviving grandmothers much better.
And I asked her about some of these racial questions after I had come to a little bit more understanding of them myself.
And her view was, well, of course, we all know that black people are just not as smart.
They just can't plan as well.
They're almost like children compared to us.
But it is essentially infrared to talk about that.
We don't talk about that because we don't have to talk about that because everyone understands that.
And it's rude and insulting to bring this out in public.
That struck me, that struck me profoundly.
This is the wife of the man who bought this book and distributed it amongst his children.
And so I think that probably was a big part of the motives of leaders who may have understood exactly what was at stake, but couldn't bring themselves to talk about it frankly, given the kind of affectionate relations many of them had with black people.
Now, my grandfather, who bought this book and distributed it, he owned a chewing tobacco factory.
And all of the hands were black.
And they had a very typical paternalistic relationship.
Management was white, the workers were black.
However, there was a real kind of affection between them.
My grandfather and my grandmother, they would, well, my grandfather, when the hands would get sick, she would go by and bring them food in their homes.
When they got drunk and one of them got stabbed or something, grandfather would go down to the jail and bail him out.
And there was this almost familial relationship, but it was based on a real understanding of hierarchy.
And in other words, white people knew, and at some level, black people knew, that white people and black people were different.
That did not stop them from having very affectionate relations with each other, but you just didn't talk about those differences.
So I do believe that that probably was something that was a real obstacle for Southerners to speak up in the name of their own way of life.
It was.
And as Southerners, we need to examine that.
To this day, I don't like to hurt black people's feelings.
I have black friends, blacks I work with.
I know black lawyers, especially several women, black lawyers who are very smart and effective lawyers.
I respect them.
I'm sure that they have listened to some of the things I've said.
And one of them told me how shocked she was when she did hear what I was saying.
So I never dreamed you had these thoughts because you've always been so, so kind and good to us.
But we have to call the question, my kindly friend, are manners wasted on our enemies?
And I think they are.
One of the heard as a child from a distant relative was that you don't wait, and Southerners are too polite.
And he was relating an incident that took place in New York, which I won't go into, but he said his grandmother had replied very rudely to a woman who'd been rude to her.
And she's a very gracious woman, a very real Southern lady.
But she told him, you don't waste manners on people like that.
Bella Abzog, very few of our young members will remember, listeners will remember Bella Abzog, but Bella Abzog, AOC, Ilhan Omar, these people, you know, Elizabeth Warren.
Do you think it ever crosses their mind that, oh, I don't want to be rude to Jared Taylor?
No, it doesn't.
And that's what liberals are.
You don't want to believe it, but that's what they're like.
Well, Mr. Dixon, you are 100% correct, not only about Southerners and their dealings with blacks, but white people in general dealing with non-whites.
To me, one of the greatest weaknesses of our race is our inability to meet a bedraggled, hungry, poverty-stricken, dressed in rags, Iraqi or Palestinian Muslim at the border trying to get in, obviously desperate, and say, oh, nope, our ancestors built this for us, not for you.
You might be better off in all material ways if I let you across the border, but I'm not going to do that.
You've got to go back to your war-torn, desolate country because we cannot afford to give our country away.
White people have a terrible, terrible time saying that.
Most white people say, even if they know, it would be very difficult for them to think, well, other than to think, oh, it's just one guy or just a few guys.
And gosh, look at how hungry and cold, badly dressed he is.
It is this inability to look someone in the face and say, no, you are not us.
You cannot be us, and we don't want you.
And that is what white people will have to say a thousand times, a million times, or they will die.
And we have a terrible time saying that.
We have to change our ways.
And also, we are inconsistent.
No, Eleanor Roosevelt never shed a tear about 12.5 million Germans expelled from their homes by the Allied victors after World War II and made to walk with a suitcase hundreds of miles to Germany to seek refuge, which we're told one and a half million of them died from famine and starvation.
Eleanor never shed a tear over them.
And they shed no tear over us today.
And that's the strange thing about our opponents.
They have a two-tier system of morality.
You believe it's sincere.
I think it's phony.
But, you know, they get all teary-eyed over Emmett Till and George Floyd, who are two individuals who were killed in involvement.
In the case of George Floyd, it's questionable, but it's any question about Emmett Till.
They were killed and Emmett Till was killed.
It's a sad thing.
But these same people have no concern at all about whites being killed in the jails.
It's an instance of that I've discussed with you all before.
You said that, well, you know, Mary Louise Taylor, of all things considered an NTR, when she saw that coming in on the wire services, she said, well, this would be bad for race relations.
So yes, white boys are just going to have to go on dying in the jails.
And I found this behavior by liberals very odd.
Mary Louise Kelly, I believe.
If we go back to race and reason, there's a very important point to bring up about this book that initially came out in 1961.
The subsequent volume came out in 1967, obviously, Race and Reason.
I'm sorry.
No, I'm sorry.
One second.
Race and Reality, the search for solutions.
What's important to point out to our listeners about this book, in 1960, America is about, what, 89% white?
I just looked this up as you guys were talking because I've seen this on Twitter as a meme.
In 1960, gentlemen, approximately 66% of all U.S. counties had a population that was 95% white or more.
It's less than 2% now in 2020 is 95% or more a county white.
I mean, America, it's shocking to think that at that point, it was basically a white, black country with a small, you know, Amera-Indian population that was largely on reservations.
But you didn't have the consequences of the 1965 Immigration Act because from a naturalization standpoint, it was basically what the 14th Amendment that allowed blacks to be considered naturalized.
But anyone immigrating here, they weren't going to be considered a naturalized citizen except if they were white.
And it's very hard to put into context just the absolute devastation to the outlook that Carlton Putnam's talking about because you didn't have the issue of Muslims, of Hispanics to the degree that you do now as issues that people are having to deal with and talk about.
Yes, yes, you're 100% correct.
And that is what, that is one of the reasons I have such a profound admiration for these guys.
That was a time in which probably thoughtful people could be persuaded to think, well, okay, if we just treat these people, treat these black people better, then it'll all work out.
I think certainly Yankees who had never been around black people, I'm sure they must have all believed that.
All they knew about black people is that they read in Time magazine or Life magazine.
And I'm sure their attitude was, well, unlike those wicked, bigoted southerners, we will be nice to them.
And if we're nice to them, they will be just like us.
But yes, to have seen all of this coming, all of this, of course, there were others.
Madison Grant saw it coming.
Lothrop Stoddard, the rising tide of color.
When did he write that?
Was that in the 1920s?
To have seen the rising tide of color back that far?
That these people were far-sighted, wise, wise people.
And then to contrast that with the people who are ruling us today, who see the evidence of the horror around us everywhere you look, every time you open your eyes, and then continue to deny it.
It's really such a terrible difference.
But a couple of things about this book, Race and Reason, that I think are worth talking about.
It's remarkable to think today that a book that is so straightforward about the necessity of racial separation, biological differences, and the historical white nature of the country, this was part of the high school curriculum in the states of Mississippi and Virginia.
And Governor Ross Barnett of Mississippi, he declared October 26, 1961, Race and Reason Day.
And he invited Putnam, this Yankee, down to Jackson, Mississippi to give a major address.
And it was on that occasion that Carlton Putnam, to his credit, told this audience of supporters: look, you can't hang your hat on states' rights.
It's science, not the Constitution that's going to save you.
I think this is a tribute to the Times, and it just goes to show you the kind of influence he could have had if white people had taken advice and said that this was really a matter of science and not this phony states' rights thing that they hid behind.
Carlton Kuhn's Scientific Legacy00:02:12
Mr. Dixon, go ahead.
I heard you, Brittany O'Pine.
Well, my mind was wandering as I listened.
I think we might talk about Mr. Taylor's preface.
We haven't talked much about that.
I read his preface to Race and Reason, which he sent you and me the other night.
And I learned something that's a factoid that I would have thought I would have known.
I was shocked to read that he was related to Carlton Kuhn.
That's right.
Yes, they were kinsmen.
I don't know how closely they were related, but the element there has to do with the fact that Carlton Kuhn, he was the head of some kind of, let's see, I'm looking through the preface right now.
I don't know if I can find it.
He was the head of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.
And the American Association of Physical Anthropologists held a meeting in which they passed a vote on Carlton Putnam, condemning him.
And Kuhn looked around the room and he says, How many of you have actually read the book?
And only one person raised his hands.
And Kuhn wrote, There they were, some of them old and trusted friends, apparently as brainwashed as Pavlov's puppies.
I told my fellow members I would no longer preside over such a craven lot, and I resigned from the presidency.
So there was another man, another man with a spy.
If I could stop you real quick, Mr. Taylor, because some of our listeners for this are going to be younger.
They're not even familiar with who Carlton Kuhn is and just the enormous contribution that he made to science and discovery and to the explorations of other cultures, because he wrote what many people consider to be a fantastic book on race and the evolution and the different biological breakdown of the racial groups and achievement.
And that would be The Origin of Racism, which has been considered basically a Nazi book by the left.
Earl Warren's Secret Deal00:09:42
That's right.
He also wrote a book called The Story of Man.
As I say, he was very much it.
Some people still, well, there are some scientific findings that have rendered some of his conclusions on the origins of races now obsolete because we know so much more.
We have ancient DNA we can go on.
But his basic positions were 100% confirmed by later knowledge, namely that the races evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, that we are biologically and psychologically different, and that it is folly to pretend otherwise.
But, well, another thing that I mentioned in the preface and reading back on it, now I wrote this preface almost exactly 20 years ago.
It's hard to believe that I was writing about this so long ago.
But he was very much involved in an attempt to overturn Brown versus Board of Education.
That was, of course, a 1954 Supreme Court decision.
We mentioned it earlier, that ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional.
He organized and worked very hard behind the scene to organize a case called Stell versus Savannah Chatham Board of Education.
And what that did, it put together a panel of distinguished scientists.
And some of these are the people who actually wrote an endorsement to the beginning of his book.
But they included people who were very, very prominent at the time: Henry Garrett and Frank McGurk and Wesley Critz George, Robert Kuttner, Ernst Vandenhag, and under the direction of one of your fellow Georgians, Mr. Kersey, R. Carter Pittman, he was the lawyer.
They presented an overwhelming biological and sociological case for segregated schools.
Now, this was in 1963.
It was nine years after Brown v. Board.
And there was a judge, Frank Scarlett, who duly found that the Brown decision had been based on incorrect facts and that it was entirely reasonable to use state power to separate students on the basis of race.
Well, I mean, this is a court case, of course, that probably I would bet you one in a thousand of our listeners have even heard of.
But of course, the NAACP appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit, and then at that point, Putnam had the case appealed to the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court had already ruled.
In effect, you asked the Supreme Court to overrule a decision that it had made only a few years previously.
And they never even replied.
They never gave it cert.
Well, as a lawyer, I would want to make one comment about that.
Please, please.
The Brown v. Topeka Board of Education decision that integrated the schools in 1954 was based on false sociology, on falsified tests that were presented to the court and was the basis of their finding that segregated education can never be equal.
And so when the Massell case went up, they not only overturned scholars, they issued a fatwa saying that such evidence, the evidence that he had heard, was evidence challenging all of the sociology for equality stuff that had been introduced in the case before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Topeka.
That it was never to be heard.
Such evidence was not to be admitted into the deliberation on court cases.
I'm sorry.
What evidence?
The evidence in this Stelvey savannah?
You can't present, you're not allowed to present evidence, sociological evidence.
They would not consider sociological evidence, arguing that the racial differences were inherent and that this would then affect the decision to mix the races.
So this is the kind of stuff they pull.
This is how fraudulent the legal system is.
I've forgotten now the name of that black so-called sociologist at his doll test.
What was his name?
Mr. Kersey will remember.
He remembers everything.
The illegal behavior is not limited to the tortured evidence.
We know that there was secret connection between the court and the plaintiff in that case.
Thurgood Marshall was meeting on, I don't know what's wrong with me, I can't remember the name of the judge, Frankfurter.
Frankfurter was meeting with them and tipping them off about concerns that the judges had and how to present.
This is one of the most unspeakable things in our legal system for a judge to be meeting secretly with an advocate in his court, feeding them information about other judges and outside the presence of counsel for the other party.
That's an appalling thing.
It calls for disarmament of someone like Trump.
Oh, yes.
It was a guy with a guy who was his last name was William.
Lights it up like they're proud of it.
And they are proud of it because that's the kind of people they are.
Well, the guy's name, he was in the U.S. Solicitor's Office.
His last name was Elman.
I don't remember his first name, but he later wrote a long article in the Harvard Law Review bragging about it, bragging about these utterly, unspeakably immoral, illegal, ex parte discussions that one side in the case had with a presiding Supreme Court justice.
It really is eye-opening.
But this just goes to show you that Brown v. Board is now, in effect, on a level of praiseworthiness.
It might as well be the 11th commandment that Moses brought down from the mountain.
But this is now such an important and unimpeachable.
Earl Warwin did the job for you, Mr. Taylor.
I beg your pardon?
What?
Earl Warren did the job for Moses in this case.
Yes, yes.
It was Earl Warren who brought it down.
But in any case, the fact that he did these things that are so obviously against all legal moral conduct just falls completely by the wayside in light of the wonderful, wonderful, epoch-making decision that was made by this courageous Supreme Court.
Now, the whole thing, Mr. Dixon, you're absolutely correct.
Even the manner in which this case was arrived at was disgustingly illegitimate.
Well, here's a factory about Earl Warren that I bet even Dr. even Mr. Taylor doesn't know.
Do you know that you know that Earl Warren was one of the leading figures in the incarceration and concentration camps of the Japanese minority in California?
Yes, and he was psychologically paying for what he looked upon later on as a terrible mistake for the rest of his life.
Well, it was in his interest.
You're being too kind.
It was in his interest to go along in the war hysteria with that act in 1942, but it was not in his interest to rule against the NAACP in 1954.
And I think this really drives leftists.
There's so much self-promotion and conniving in them.
Well, let us not overlook the fact that self-promotion and conniving is part of the human condition, and it is not exclusively the preserve of those who oppose us.
People are pretty bereft of anything that's admirable in my book.
But let's see.
Well, the black psychologist, I just looked this up because I couldn't remember his name.
Kenneth Clark, right?
Yes, Kenneth Clark.
That's the guy.
You remember everything, Mr. Curtis.
I just remembered Ken.
I couldn't remember if it was.
Yes.
I was thinking of, I think, there was a really good book by Baker.
Isn't that Race by?
Isn't that James Baker or Jim Baker?
Anyways.
Yes, yes.
Well, in fact, I think we should stress one other thing, too.
Since we're talking about five.
Well, Mr. No, no, Mr. Dixon, I wanted to talk about Kenneth Clark, not just to repeat his name, but the findings of these doll tests were the very opposite of what he said to the Supreme Court.
What he would do is he would take black children who went to segregated schools, and he would ask them, which doll do you prefer?
And he would show them a white doll and a black doll.
Almost invariably, they would reach for the black doll.
He would take the same dolls, and he would show them to black children who attended integrated schools.
And they were more likely to reach for the white doll.
He falsified the results.
And he said that his tests showed that black children had higher self-esteem if they attended integrated schools.
So not only were the so-called sociological data on which the Supreme Court decision was based, not only were they incorrect, they were deliberately falsified.
So it is a misinterpretation based on a deliberate lie.
White Opponents and Prisoners00:13:17
The whole thing, the more you look into this entire case, the more disgusting it becomes.
And the whole idea was that it was to decide that based on the 14th Amendment, segregation of schools was unconstitutional.
Well, right off the bat, it had been pointed out by the people who were supporting segregation that the very Congress that had passed the 14th Amendment had established segregated schools in the District of Columbia.
At that time, Washington, D.C. was so run by Congress that it was even setting up schools, and they had set up segregated schools.
So the idea that this was something that violated the 14th Amendment was on its face preposterous.
And then they had this cooked up evidence that was total baloney, as well as these utterly, utterly despicable back-channel communications between one side trying to make sure that it came, of course, that the decision came down the way they wanted.
Now, the whole thing, the more you look into it, the more this absolutely reverentially referred to Brown v. Board of Education is just a disgusting travesty of anything like justice or morality or even realistic facts.
And it didn't do any good.
The point that I always wanted to make was that as Sir Kercy and I were talking about last week, And you know this better than I because you're a better informed person than I am.
But there have not been any studies that reveal the great benefits that we were promised from mixing the races.
There's no evidence that this brought about any significant improvement in black academic performance.
When you get to the fair housing law, even with all of the special programs that were passed to allow to give special perks, down payment assistance, buying the interest rate down, all this stuff that's been done at every level of government to help black people get homes, the rate of black homeownership is lower today than it was when the Fair Housing Act was passed.
We have the results.
The experiment has been tried all across America with busing, with mixing schools in this county, that county, this city, that county.
There is no data to support what liberals are trying to do.
It's just a complete pipe dream.
Yes, that's true.
That's true.
The scores of black children did not rise just because they were able to attend school and sit next to white children.
And of course, the real consequence of integrating schools was that white people cleared out.
The schools became overwhelmingly black, went completely downhill, and white people then were taxed to support public schools, but then also paid out of their pockets for private schools, or they had to move away.
The whole integration of schools was a colossal, colossal failure across the board.
How many trillions of dollars do you think have been lost because of it?
Whites have been driven out of the cities.
The whole country has to commute.
100 million cars a day are driven 30 or 40 miles to and from work, affecting pollution, affecting the the, the trade balances, all these things.
It's just been a catastrophe.
You cannot get these people to reconsider it.
They, they hate us.
Like I said last week, they hate us and there's a lot of hate behind this program, the idea that it's all done by loving sweet, sincere.
No they they, they want these results.
I see I disagree with you there, but that's another.
That's another conversation.
I don't think that they hate white people, for example, the Who were marching in Minneapolis against ICE.
I don't think they hate white people.
They are all white people.
They have white children.
They have white wives.
They have white husbands.
They have white friends.
They don't hate white people.
But they do have an utterly twisted idea of what morality requires.
And they are utterly, utterly, and suicidally short-sighted about the consequences of the policies they support.
But I think it's a mistake to assume that they hate their own race and they hate people.
They might hate people like you and me, Mr. Dixon, because of what we say, but on principle, I don't think they hate white people.
How do you explain the vote in Virginia for the black Democratic candidate for Attorney General who's revealed to have exchanged an email to other people fantasizing about killing white children and making their mothers hold their dying children?
The Democratic base turned out and they voted.
They didn't give a damn about that.
Mr. Dixon, Mr. Dixon, I looked that incident up, and apparently what it was was a discussion of gun control.
And he was talking about a specific Republican statehouse member who is very much against gun control.
And he said what it would take is for his wife to hold his daughter dying in her arms, their child dying in their arms.
Maybe that's what it would take for him to understand gun control.
He was not saying white children all have to die.
I know that he was talking about white political opponents.
Yes, it was a white political opponent.
The very idea that nobody, nobody in the Democratic Party is upset about that.
They're not upset.
They're not upset by the situation and the killings of white prisoners in the jails.
They're not upset about that.
I think they probably are, but they would see this as a horrible and unnecessary price to pay for the kind of race-free, racism-obliterating, happy future that they're trying to build.
If they recognized that prisoners just all desire racial segregation and all of these horrible things that happen because people are forced together across racial lines that they hate the idea that this applies to them too, despite the fact they live in the happy white suburbs, this would be too much for them.
I believe that they are capable of having these two things in their minds.
They can recognize, okay, white prisoners being gangbuggered by black prisoners.
That's an awful thing.
And perhaps it happens.
And that's awfully bad.
But if the only way to keep that from happening is segregation in the prisons, that has implications about our lives that we just find unbearable.
I don't think they're happy at the idea of Weak young white prisoners who can't defend themselves against that kind of assault by blacks.
I don't think that makes them happy.
For some reason, gentlemen, going back to Carlton Putnam, didn't he live in Northern Virginia?
Am I blanking on this?
Because I was closed with an observation about where Virginia is that Mr. Dixon brought up in regards to the new Attorney General.
But I was thinking about, you know, we are a nation that has completely turned away from acknowledging racial differences as explaining the differences and outcome.
And there is no reason anymore at all in our society.
And you think about what just happened with this Sierra Leonean illegal alien in Northern Virginia who murdered this white woman from Fredericksburg at a bus stop.
And to Sam's, to Mr. Dixon's point, the left has done, and the prosecutor there, I'm sorry, the district attorney in Fairfax County, which is where the New Century Foundation was located for 20 years.
In fact, you wrote this forward to the essay.
It was probably in that home, in your old home, sir, in Fairfax.
And I just, I think about that in the context of, again, we're talking about what, 70, 60, 60 to 70 years ago, this book was written.
And you just think of how utterly alien America is now.
And it's no longer just about the white-black issue.
It's problems that you couldn't even foresee.
You brought up Minneapolis.
There were virtually no Somalians anywhere in the United States up until 1980 when the Refugee Act happened.
This was a problem that didn't, you know, because we've discussed this before.
Minnesota in 1970 was 98% white.
And now, and now you're just looking at the country and you're just realizing everything that Putnam brought up and everything that he tried to warn the entire country about by taking the side of white southerners.
It was just completely just fell on deaf ears.
And it's just tragic.
It's just tragic.
Yes, it is.
Well, Carlton Putnam lived, he had a nice estate, apparently, in the Pimmett Hills area of Fairfax County that's not quite at the McLean or Great Falls level, but it's now quite an upscale part of Fairfax County.
And I know that there was at least one of our racially oriented comrades who lived in a guest house on his property.
I never met Carlton Putnam myself.
Mr. Dixon, did you have an opportunity to meet him personally?
I never did.
He's one of the very few people are major figures on our side that I did not meet.
Yeah, I feel very bad about that.
Does anyone recall when he died?
I think he lived to quite a ripe old age.
In any case, well, I guess maybe I will look that up while you all engage each other in sprightly dialogue.
Well, while you're doing that, there are a couple of little facts.
You'd actually already mentioned that.
98.
Okay.
Yes, 98.
So, gosh, could very well have met him if he was willing to meet me, but that's really a pity.
There are a couple of little factoids I'd like to throw out since our listeners maybe help their listeners.
One of them is that not all blacks were in favor of this.
They had disappeared in history.
You will both recognize the name of Zora Neale Hurston, who was the first major black female novelist.
And she's such a big figure in black history that at least once a year, there's some book about her, some article about her in the New York Times Sunday book review section.
Well, she was opposed to Ralber's topic.
And she also defended slavery.
She said that slavery was the price that we paid for civilization.
Man, yes.
And they do a great job of airbrushing all of that out.
You know, not mentioning, they're glorifying her, that she was an independent thinker, and she felt that it was an insult to blacks to say that they couldn't learn if they weren't sitting next to white children.
And the other thing about anecdotally about the pre-mixing south, I mentioned Collada, my grandmother's servant, and Jared talked about his family's connections.
But there was a black guy in the town in South Carolina where my grandparents lived named Bob Shepherd.
Bob Shepard had a successful seafood business.
He had a seafood processing business down by the docks.
And when the subject of race came up, my family, most of whom were pretty determinedly segregationists, they would always comment that, well, you can't forget people like Bob Shepard, who's a smart guy and runs a first-rate business.
They went out of their way to be very fair to blacks.
Yes, yes, yes, that's certainly true.
Well, as we're closing up here, gentlemen, I'd like to point out one thing.
I was just reading, the Princeton Alumni Weekly, they actually put out a, when he passed away, they put out his obituary.
And they don't mention that he wrote Race and Reality.
They don't mention that he wrote Race and Reason.
They just point out this.
He said, and by the way, Mr. Taylor, he was a board member of Delta Airlines up until his death.
So even though he wrote these two books, nobody ever did the due diligence, or maybe they did, and they just Delta refused to remove him.
But he said this.
I decided early in life, being an American, that I would like to satisfy two needs of my nature.
One was the need for the life of action.
The other was the need for the life of the mind.
And I kind of find it sad, gentlemen, that he passed away in Charlottesville, Virginia at a time when the state of Virginia was far different than it is now.
The foreign-born population was probably, oh my goodness, a couple million less in regards to what's transpired since 1998 to 2026 with the folly of Afghanistan, Iraq, the refugees have been brought over.
Race and reason was, it's still so important, but it was written at the time, gentlemen, to close when the country was basically white-black.
Bringing Race and Reason Back to Print00:04:31
Yep.
And I wish from Mr. Taylor.
Yes, sir.
It's a friendly, polite question.
It's not ugly.
It's not designed to provoke.
As Mr. Kersey was just saying, Carlton Putnam could look in the crystal wall and he could see the future.
He could see and everything he and what we have said has been borne out by events.
We have been shown to be right.
Our opponents have been shown to be wrong.
Yes.
Gracious.
The question becomes: why can't the people in Minneapolis see what, you know, the people who are demonstrating against ICE, they apparently feel 100,000 Somalis is not enough.
You know, nine and a half billion dollars stolen from what will do good programs.
That's trivial enough to be concerned about.
Do they never think?
How does their mind ever think out that what is it going to be like when there are a million Somalis in Minneapolis?
How is it that they're they have these remarkable short-term minds that never carry things out into the future?
Well, I agree with you.
I agree with you, but I will repeat, Carlton Pussnam.
I'm convinced that they are sincere humanitarians who are being unconsciously victimized by a hoax.
Now, it does seem, as you say, anyone with the IQ of a fried egg could see through this hoax, but I believe that is basically their problem rather than pure evil.
But Mr. Kersey has been trying to wrap up this program, rightly so.
And I wish I could tell our listeners how to obtain a copy of the reissue of Race and Reason that contained the preface that I lovingly wrote for it.
But it's out of print.
We are going to do our best to get it back into print.
We never had it in print-on-demand format, and we ordered up a bunch of them, printed up in bulk, which is the way books used to be done back in the dark ages when I first got into this business.
And we have sold them all.
So we will endeavor mightily to get it back into print.
But I must say, Mr. Kersey, I've very much enjoyed this conversation with you and with Mr. Dixon.
And I very much appreciate your being the convener of this conversation.
Well, we appreciate all that you've done, including a minor thing, reprinting the book and making it available and now undertaking to reprint it again.
Bravo.
It's a fantastic, it's a fantastic gesture for bringing truth into a world where it's more fashionable to be unreasonable than it is to admit the realities of race that Carlton Putnam laid out back in 1961 in this fantastic volume.
You can get it, ladies and gentlemen, if you go to eBay.
I would recommend doing that.
There are some copies that are inexpensive.
But just like the book we talked about last week, Conquest of a Continent by Madison Grant, these are very important works that represent a postdoctorate degree, gentlemen, in race, racial understanding.
So, Mr. Dixon, how do we get in touch with you if people want to follow up?
Well, we can email it.
It's a long, silly email, but it's March like the month.
Bloom, like a flower bloom, Ling, L-I-N-G, like a year ling, 36 at gmail.com.
And you get in touch with me, ladies and gentlemen, to recommend books that we should look at, maybe potentially discuss at becausewelivehere at protonmail.com.
Once again, that email is becausewevehere at protonmail.com.
And Mr. Taylor, if you don't let me, if you don't mind me saying, you can get in touch with you, good sir, by going to the amrin.com contact us page.
Yes, sir.
That will work every time.
And I'll tell you what, do Mr. Taylor a favor and let him know how excited you are after hearing this podcast about him bringing back race and reason, a Yankee view in publication.
I think he does deserve all the credit in the world for his tireless work to bring about, like I said, a rational understanding of the race question in America.