9 May 2011
by Alex Kurtagic
I met Louis Andrews at an event in 2009. The first time I spoke to him was at a breakfast table, prior to a day's worth of talks. On that occasion this amiable Southerner sported a white beard and sandals, the latter in defiant opposition to everyone else's polished lace-up shoes. Without introducing each other, we talked about American society and history, a topic on which he understatedly articulated radically unconventional opinions. Later that day someone mentioned that Louis Andrews—the gentleman I had spoken to earlier in the day—chaired the National Policy Institute and owned Washington Summit Publishers, which had published books by Richard Lynn and similar authors—books that have changed the world, for any modern discussion or controversy about race differences has originated from the research published in those books. Until then I had only known him by reputation. I subsequently learnt that Mr. Andrews had in a previous incarnation been a successful private mortgage broker, and the originator of the Stalking the Wild Taboo project, an educational website aimed at disseminating research on racial differences in intelligence and racial dynamics. Later on, while discussing his plans as a publisher, we agreed to keep in touch, as I was interested in making his titles available in United Kingdom (they are now and you can order them here). What follows is my interview with him, conducted on 16 April 2011. Unlike previous interviews (with Tomislav Sunic, Greg Johnson, Jaenelle Antas, Kevin MacDonald, and Richard Spencer), this one was not conducted in writing by email; the questions were read out to him and he answered verbally. The replies below are as they were given, with only minimal editing.
How do you remember the America you grew up in?
It was vastly different. I grew up just outside of Charlston. It was an idyllic way to grow up. It was out in the country, on the water. I always swore I would never live in a place that had sidewalks. Of course now I do, but it was no sidewalks, lots of floodland and marsh, very rural. The road in front of my house was dirt until I was five years old, in about 1957. I was able to indulge myself as a child, and virtually every day of the year either go fishing or hunting, because I could just walk down to the dock and fish or go out on the boat and hunt or go out on the boat and fish. It was a wonderful childhood. I don’t think anybody will ever experience it again like that.
Sounds like the world of Huckleberry Finn.
It was a lot closer to that than anything we have today.
What were the things that people took for granted then that are inconceivable today?
The biggest thing would be Black-White relations in terms of dating and marriage. The idea of dating someone of another race, particularly if they were black, was just unconscionable. It was as far out as you could get as far as a different approach to life. It’s amazing, the change. It’s astounding. I think it started changing in the fifties. We didn’t pick up on it. It started occurring mainly as a result of television. Radio had some impact but nothing like what television did. I remember the Ed Sullivan show and the first time he kissed a black entertainer, there was outrage throughout the country, but he did it again.
When we met, you mentioned that your clan has long roots in North America. How far into the past do they go? And did by any chance any of your pre-America ancestors come from Hyngham in Norkfolk or Dorking in Surrey?
Not to my knowledge. My English ancestry is primarily East Anglia, which would be Viking ancestry and unfortunately the home of liberalism. Modern liberalism grew out of East Anglia’s religious movement in my opinion—that was a major influence. The next was Yorkshire. I have some ancestry from Yorkshire, which is rather different: much more basic people, less interested in esoteric religious or political philosophy—just in getting the job done. In fact the oldest existing frame home existing in the United States was built in 1636—it was built by one of my ancestors, Jonathan Fairbanks, and it’s opened part of the year as a museum now. It’s just outside of Boston, Dedham, Massachussets. My other ancestors are German. They came here in 1735. But I have located more Huguenot ancestors than I have German. In terms of actual ratios, I am 30% German, 10% French Huguenot, and the balance English.
I would imagine such history provides you with an opinion on who can legitimately lay claim to the United States. Over time, however, we have seen the growth a Mestizo-Amerindian movement that claims the United States theirs because they were there first and are “indigenous” to the continent. Another claim comes from Blacks, who say it belongs to them because they “built it”. What do you think of these competing claims to the United States?
I don’t think much about them. In terms of the latter, the building would not have occurred without W.A.S.P.s. W.A.S.P.s were the fundamental ethnic group in this country. The Black claim is certainly laughable. The other claim is pretty vague, there is no legitimacy to that whatsoever. My ancestors are the ones who died and got scalped. One of my ancestors had a child prior to being scaped and killed—this is in the St. Phillips war in New England. It’s a very important war to study in terms of American history, but it is not emphasized in the history books at all—it should be. The English adopted the Indians to fight for them. We had a lot of what I would consider basic Americans who died and who were scalped in New England as a result of that complicity with the English. The French were no better. Life was cheap then. The whole world changed in terms of its view of human life and its view of warfare when All Quiet in the Western Front came out. That book, I believe, is the most influential book in world history in the last hundred years. They thought nothing of having these slaughter lines where troops attacked each other in open land, dying by the thousands. That sort of thing today would be incomprehensible. It’s not something we wouldn’t put up with. We would blow them all to hell from a distance, but we’re not going to line up ten thousand men and say, ‘OK, start shooting’ until you drop, which is what we did in the First World War. Pretty terrible situation. I used not to be a pacifist, but I’ve become more and more of a pacifist as I have grown older. These wars have been dysgenic, very much so. We’ve hurt ourselves to no end. I would agree with my late friend Sam Francis in that probably this country has never been in a war, except maybe the Mexican-American war, that has been beneficial to this country. We’ve been on the losing side no matter what we called it in every instance.
What attracted you to the social sciences and political theory?
It think it had everything to do with race. I became fascinated by race and race differences when I was in college, and became interested in various approaches to solving racial problems. And the truth is that there is no solving. There is only managing, which is entirely different from solving. We often see articles in the papers discussing of this approach or that approach to solve things, but they don’t solve anything. The situation needs to be managed: segregation is one way of managing it, multiculturalism is another way of managing it. I don’t have any faith in any way of managing it that has come up. We’re between as stick and a hard place, there is nowhere for us to go intellectually and live a decent life. We’ve become such outlaws now that the only solution at present is to keep your mouth shut and talk to your friends. Sad to say, but that’s about it.
I understand that you were involved in the Youth for Wallace group during the late 1960s. The group opposed the Vietnam war and the what is referred to as the “civil rights movement”. What prompted you to get involved with this group? Was this the first group you were ever involved with? What was it like to be politically active at that the Wallace end of the political spectrum in 1968.
It was very unsatisfying. But it was all there was. I was state director for Youth for Wallace. I don’t think we really accomplished anything. We did a lot of work, wrote a lot of papers, published things, promoted things. When the smoke cleared the battlefield hadn’t changed, except that we were in a worse situation than we had when we started. There was nothing there in the long run that did is any good. I later became Exectutive Secretary of the National Youth for Wallace, which grew out of the Youth for Wallace movement. It was a more intellectual, less populist movement, but it didn’t go anywhere either—it fell apart.
The year 1968 was also a year of upheaval among university students. Paris came to a standstill in May that year. What were your thoughts on this phenomenon at the time? How do you view it looking back on it now? And how were the university students of the 1960s different from the university students of today?
I think at the time I adopted a typical Right-wing mode and was active against the popular movement of 1968. But in retrospect I think they were probably more right than we were. I was in my last year of grade school. I think we made a big mistake and adopted the wrong side of the cause in Vietnam. We helped slaughter 55,000 of our citizens by promoting something that wasn’t going to benefit our country in any way whatsoever. History will show it certainly didn’t.
Your business background was in mortgage invesment. What attracted you to this sector? Also, were you still active in the mortgage business when the subprime crisis hit in 2007? What do you think should have been done differently in the years / decades prior to 2007?
What attracted me to it was money. I was interested in making a decent living. I had a private mortgage business, not a public mortgage business, which meant I made private loans to individuals or I bought existing mortgages in real estate. Today I might buy a $5,000 on a lot for mobile homes and tomorrow I might buy a $1,000,000 mortgage and swap it out to a buyer, which quite often made me just a bank. People don’t know where to go to do things and the type of service that was provided by people like me in the mortgage business was that I would buy it from them and then turn around and sell it to the bank, just because they didn’t know how to. On various occasions I would be able to have a single transaction that resulted in maybe $20,000 profit. A few of those a year along with steady business and you can live decently. I started out in Charlston in an assessor’s office. I was interested in real state always and I was interested in mortgages because I was always interested in finance, how it works and how banking works. In fact, I designed a mortgage instrument that was designed by the subprime people much later. It was very, very successful.
The whole subprime business was the result of two things, one of them is greed, and two was a lack of attention to detail. When they made millions of loans to people they had no business making loans to. Primarily Blacks and Mexicans, to whom they made huge loans without any proper background checks. With my mortgage business I would not touch anything unless it was 65% of the value of the property or less. Some of the subprime loans were 100%. If your mortgage criteria is that you will start considering making a loan at 65%, and look at it from there, and say, well, these are additional factors that are bad, you might not be willing to make it a 50% loan. And that is a whole different ballgame in terms of financials being viable than making 100% loan.
You have been interested in race and IQ, and the effects of human differences in these areas on American, and by extension Western, societies. Scientifically, I find this a necessary field of enquiry. But politically I am not sure as to whether it can achieve the objectives set by critics of immigration and multiculturalism. Yes, Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard used scientific data to lobby for the passage of the 1924 Immigration Act and the 1924 Racial Integrity Act, but this may have been less to do with the actual data and more to do with the zeitgeist at the time. Generally, humans choose the data set that suits their vanity and confirms them in their prejudices. With this in mind, what can realistically be achieved with this type of literature, apart from advancing scientific knowledge?
Very little. Primarily it is advancing scientific knowledge. But also it is a matter of having something with a scientific basis available, particularly to college kids and young people, to reinforce a belief. And that is the primary purpose of it and the primary benefit. Other than that . . . Truth doesn’t make any difference. Maybe in the long haul—I’d like to think so.
In 1996 you launched Stalking the Wild Taboo. What were your aims with this venture?
My purpose there was the same as starting Washington Summit Publishers: introduce as many people as possible to the existing literature in race and race difference and racial dynamics. I completed the project in May of 1996. It has had as big an impact on popular understanding on popular understanding on race and race differences as any single thing I can think of. It was a very important project, with a lot of important ramifications. Same as Washington Summit: we are the world’s most important and largest publisher of literature on race and race differences. And that says something about the nature of our society: we have so little, yet that is all we have. Richard Lynn was publishing successfully with Praeger which is an academic publisher. They had a special division on evolution and human development, where Lynn and quite a few other writers on race and race difference and ethnicity published. They had a change in leadership and, to be blunt about, a Jew took over management of that section. Actually, it was run by a Jew before, but he was very sympathetic. It was taken over by another one and he immediately closed down these writers and just said ‘No, we’re not doing that anymore’. So I was able to get access to people like Tatu Vanhanen . . . It made a big difference, it gave us a huge opportunity. The truth is, the same could have been accomplished just as well by Praeger, if they had continued to publish. We published a number of Jewish authors, which were very popular. But, to be honest about it, this has also been somewhat of a strain, because there is a natural undercurrent among people interested in race and ethnicity of anti-Semitism. The Jews that understand this, understand that it is natural and normal for gentiles to have an antagonism towards Jews and vice versa. Nothing to be ashamed of, it’s a normal evolutionary situation. If we didn’t have it, we wouldn’t be different. I think the Jews we have published, and there have been an number, understand this, and the flack we get is to a large extent from Left wing gentiles.
For about ten years now you have operated Washington Summit Publishers, a publishing company specialising on what in popular parlance is termed “scientific racism”. What prompted you to get involved in this venture? What is it like out there at the fringes (although I like to see it as the cutting edge) of the publishing industry? What are the challenges and rewards of publishing books that the establishment really would rather did not exist?
We purchased most of the book catalogue published by Scott Townsend Publishers. They had published a lot of stuff on race. Most of that stuff unfortunately was reprints of things published that was between fifty to a hundred years old. Played into the hands of the Left. I think that was a mistake on our part, because there was very little market for that for a start, and the market that was there was not a market that we needed in order to advance the case of understanding of race differences. Talking about ancient Aryans is not getting very far with the world that lived through Hitler. That’s neither good nor bad, just the way it is. And we need to understand that and take that into consideration with our activities. There are somethings we can accomplish, somethings we can’t.
Do Black children need a Western-style education?
I don’t think so. I don’t know what you mean by Western-style, but probably something that concentrated on the basics: reading and writing and arithmetic up until 8th grade would be more than sufficient. And beyond that you would look for standout students and give them an opportunity to do more. We waste billions of dollars in this country trying to educate people far beyond their ability, and we do this by lowering out standards. There is nobenefit to Whites whatsoever. It’s false.
The United States has occupied and rebuilt Haiti a number of times. Following the earthquake there last year, new calls were made for it to be re-built, again. Should it be rebuilt?
We have no business in appearing in Haiti whatsoever. Haiti is a failed society. It’s never going to be a society that is successful, and every dime we spend there is probably results result in a dollar’s worth of damage. The damage is not necessarily to other countries but to their own country. Being a failed society and vastly overpopulated, all the money we donate there, in food and everything else, every dollar we spend there results in a new baby. What benefit is there for Haiti in a new baby? There is no benefit whatsoever. It’s a terrible burden. Haiti is a terrible burden to itself. There is no reason for it to be a terrible burden for us.
What are your thoughts on the e-book? Will it be good for the publishing industry? Or will it lead to a repeat of the situation we have already encountered with music over the past decade, with illegal downloads devastating the industry?
I think the latter. I have a Kindle, and I use. But I think in the long run it's going to devastate book stores. There are few of them. Most of them are part of large commercial concerns, like borders, and those have been devastated. eBooks have a lack of permanence—something with two covers and a spine on a shelf has a lot of permenance. Whether it’s used or not is another thing, but it’s available and it’s there. I don’t think we have the same result with eBooks.
Establishment academics and commentators like to image, or rather, would like citizens to imagine, that our regaining political ascendancy would mean a return to the bad old days: women forced out of the labour market and into the kitchen; Blacks re-enslaved and lynched; Richard Lynn’s standard university textbooks; people forced to carry bagfuls of gold coins to conduct their business transactions; television programming consisting of 24-hours solid of political speeches; court witnesses swearing on a copies of Mein Kampf; science abolished (except for eugenics); and society plunged into a dark age of brute force, ignorance, fear, and superstition. What does, in fact, a future where we have regained political ascendancy look like?
It certainly wouldn’t look like that, because if it did we wouldn’t have gained political ascendancy! Those things are just not going to happen. Any world we try to create, and creating a new one is not easy, is going to have to take into consideration that none of those things are beneficial to us because they are not going to happen. We may have a [inaudible] that says this would be wonderful, to have women back in the home . . . But the truth is that’s not part of the future. Whatever we can do to create a better world will have to be part of what is possible, not what is impossible.
In your opinion, what will the United States look like in 100 years?
I think it will be divided into four parcels, four different countries possibly, or sections. There will be a very strong division. And not necessarily racial or ethnic—the net result will be racial, but it will be regional. We are not looking at people saying, ‘Well, I hate Black people so I’m going to move here.’ That’s not going to happen. You may have some skinheads who will do that. But the truth is that most of the world is not like that, doesn’t share those feelings. Anything we create will have to fits in with the feelings of people. I had a visitor from England recently, this Chinese kid I used to know twenty years ago, who’s now forty years old, and he was quite liberal, as usual. We were talking about immigration and so forth, and he brought up the BNP, and he brought it up positively, saying they were largely right in their approach. That’s the sort of thing we need to look for.
Finally, how would you like to be remembered in 100 years?
As somebody who was at the forefront of promoting the understanding of race and race differences and racial dynamics. I think I am. I think that would be the greatest legacy I could ask for.