The Occidental Quarterly is an American journal "devoted to the ethnic, racial, and cultural heritage that forms the foundation of Western Civilization". It aims to defend "the cultural, ethnic, and racial interests of Western European peoples" and examine "contemporary political, social, and demographic trends that impact the posterity of Western Civilization".

Thats what the Charles Martel society publishes according to wikipedia. But I can't find if they do anything but publish this. 

Does what they are don't suddenly become racist because of what the NAACP does?  If I were to say the NAACP has racist overtones also, would you then agree that what is going on here with these groups is also racist?

I think you might need to take a more thorough look at this. There was a wide-spread defection (among whites) from the Democratic Party following the Civil Rights legislation....it actually started prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The earliest data I've seen goes back to 1952, at which time, the Democratic party was already taking stances to advance civil rights.

Bolded: I'd be very careful with what your're saying. Carter's 1976 election had a lot do with Watergate. If you look at the trends, you clearly see the South becoming less Democratic starting in 1964. For example, Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate for president (who was against Civil Rights Legislation) won Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and Lousiana....not to mention George Wallace's third-party candidancy in 1968 that played up racial tendencies. He and Nixon(Rep) split the South.

1964 is generally given as the turning point because you had the presidential candidates.....the most visible politicians in the country coming out in support of civil rights (Johnson-Dem) and against civil rights (Goldwater-Rep).

Edit: I'd also add that there is a big difference between presidential elections and state/local elections when looking at the role that civil rights legislation played in the movement of southerners away from the Democratic party.

No, no, it doesn't count if it's reverse racism, it's only objectionable if it's whites against blacks, not blacks against whites. lol.  Liberals...

Conservatism tends towards racism because it favours the status quo and dislikes change. Liberalism tends towards racism because it favours non-intervention and thus only favours change that demands less of people within the social contract. Progressivism tends away from racism because it seeks progress for all of society and advocates for a hands on approach to achieving social progress.

Conservatism tends towards racism because racism is the status quo (entrenched in much of society). If the status quo was robust racial equality then conservatism would try to preserve that status quo. But to achieve that status quo requires managed change which goes against the conservative and liberal grain.

I already explained that the whole Democrat becoming Republicans nonsense was simple not true.  The overwhelming majority of Dixiecrats went back to the Democrat party after it failed.  Also the South kept voting democrat for decades after the Civil Rights Act was passed.  For decades almost every member of the House of Representatives from the South were Democrats.  

About Goldwater.  He was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights (his record shows that) but, on principle, he disagreed with the idea of Federal government intervention regarding this matter. “His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.

Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools. Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.

Goldwater was one of theose Ron Paul type of guys when it came to this stuff.

Anyway speaking of Civil Rights, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

Give me a break on Lyndon Johnson.  He was quoted as saying "We will have the n*****s voting democrat for 200 years"

That was Johnson's interest in the whole Civil Rights Act.....getting the black vote.  He had to depend on Republicans to get it passed while his party (that was historically against Civil Rights) reaped the benefits because citizens look at which party holds the presidency...not the Senate or House.

Some of you need to learn your history.  No offense.

It'd be more accurate to say that you "stated" that the widely-agreed upon perception is not true. You then cited to a handful of data as proof of a general movement. One of those data points was akin to saying that the West Coast was staunchly Republican in the 80's because all the states twice went for Reagan.

I'm willing to be persuaded, but I need more than what you've offered so far to become convinced that the story agreed upon by most historians is incorrect.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the movement of the electorate away from the Democratic party in presidential elections. I focused on this because you mentioned Carter's victory in 1976. You're essentially cherry picking an election to try and prove a point that just isn't true and is actually irrelevant to your argument. The fact is....there has been a mass migration of white voters (particularly the upper class) away from Democratic presidential candidates and the Democratic party in the South.

The problem is you're making an argument that Republicans had a better record on civil rights than Democrats......which I highly question. The dominant causal factor is region, not party (I really want to emphasize this point). If you look, Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans were both much more anti-civil rights than northerners. It just so happened there was a larger portion of Democrats in the South. Also, the Civil Rights Act passed on the back of northern support from both Dems. and Reps.....not just Republican members.

As for Goldwater's or Johnson's true beliefs, its really irrelevant. Have you ever talked to a politician? They all have agendas and will justify their arguments in whatever way they see fit....I mean they're pretty much pathological liars, but that's another discussion. That said, I'd take Goldwater's justifications with a grain of salt. The fact is, the voting electorate, interpreted it a different way, as can be seen with blacks supporting the Democrats at about a 90% clip, as well as the movement of white southeners away from the Democratic party.

Personally, I think the more likely reason for Johnson and Goldwater splitting on the issue is political strategy.....meaning Johnson and Goldwater both took alternative positions because they thought they could gain an electoral advantage that way. Johnson gambled on civil rights support, and Goldwater tried to gain support from the members who were alienated by that decision.

Now, the point I do agree with you on is the fact that member of Congress continued to call themselves Democrats, however, they weren't really constrained Democrats. They accepted New Deal economic policies but remained socially conservative on race issues (by conservative I mean resistant to change). This is why you saw a good bit of split-ticket voting back in the 1970s....people voting Republican for president and Democratic for the House.

It really depends on what you mean by Democrats becoming Republcans. I'm going to have to resort to textbook definitions here:

The Democratic party in the electorate (voters), both in terms of party identification and presidential voting behavior, became less Democratic, especially among white voters in the South, which was the stronghold for racists policies. Now, I think its safe to say that most of them switched towards the Republican party, but some might have become independent (I actually haven't seen data on this point).

However, in terms Congressional election, this trend is not as pronounced and seemed to lag behind presidential trends.

Its important to make the distinction between presidential elections and congressional elections. The truth is...the parties did start to take substantially different stances on racial issues, but these stances did not necessarily effect how politicians at the local level labeled themselves in terms of party identification, so you still saw a lot of racially conservative Democrats in the south, even though the national party platform supported the civil rights movement. Its really a problem of the decentralized American party strcuture.

Good point, and it does fit with some of what I know of that era.