A White Nationalist Novel from 1902
Thomas Dixon’s The Leopard’s Spots
Dave Chambers
Thomas Dixon Jr.
The Leopard’s Spots: A Romance of the White Man’s Burden- 1865-1900
New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1902
The most memorable book that I read in 2024 was written in 1902. In addition to being highly entertaining, I found it to be quite relevant to our cause today. This is, perhaps, rather peculiar considering that in addition to being well over a century old, The Leopard’s Spots is a work of fiction. But there is a great deal of truth in Thomas Dixon’s first novel. Dixon (1864-1946) was a committed White Nationalist who set out to spread the word to the masses, and The Leopard’s Spots is a metapolitical tour de force which gave the white man a dire warning, but also a positive vision for the future.
Subscribe here to keep reading
A%20White%20Nationalist%20Novel%20from%201902%0AThomas%20Dixon%E2%80%99s%20The%20Leopard%E2%80%99s%20Spots%0A
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
5 comments
I think this was one of the best articles I’ve ever read at counter currents! Thanks for an interesting, highly nuanced discussion. I see that Dixon and likely a wider intellectual cadre helped to forge the post 1900 to 1950s consensus on race in America. Their strategy to not directly attack the vanity or heroic icons of the northern suzerains was smart. That can be a galling pill to swallow, so it speaks to their height of ideals.
There was another article on Dixon at this website, which reviewed The Klansman. I got the book at that time but alas haven’t read it. So many books, so little time! Margaret Mitchel wrote in a letter to Dixon once, “on every page of my book, I have quoted from you.”
Thanks for the kind words DP. I’ve read part of The Clansman and it’s decent but starts very slow. Dixon goes on and on about what a kind, gentle, peace-loving man Lincoln was, which just isn’t true. The way Dixon humiliates the character based on Thaddeus Stevens is amusing though. The Leopard’s Spots is a much better book in my opinion, but The Clansman sold better, so the readers in 1905 disagree with me.
I’m going to have to read some of Mitchell’s work, as she was very much on our side.
Well, Margaret Mitchell really only wrote gone with the wind. That’s her only book. She’s like one of those people like Cervantes that lives through one great book. But it is worth reading. I did read it. It is very great but could’ve been shorter. You can get pretty much everything you need to know from the movie too by the way.
DarkPlato: January 16, 2025 Margaret Mitchell really only wrote gone with the wind. That’s her only book…
—
That’s correct, DP. There’s more to her connection to Tom Dixon:
An early and admiring reader [of Mitchell’s Gone With the Wind] was Thomas Dixon, whose fiction had served as the basis for The Birth of a Nation. He sent the author a complimentary letter and she replied with a humorous account of her “dramatization” at age 11 of his book The Traitor. Part of Dixon’s approval stemmed no doubt from the fact that Gone with the Wind echoes many of his views on Reconstruction. For example, in the chapters she devotes to black-white conflict, Margaret Mitchell is in tacit accord with Dixon on the compelling need for white sovereignty…
That is based from a 1977 Instauration magazine article: Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind Was Not Selznick’s | National Vanguard
For the rest of the hidden story of the Jewish hand in both films, read more:
The two screen epics of the South are also linked by the circumstance that a sharklike Jewish manipulator, Louis B. Mayer, profited hugely from both. An immigrant from Russia and one-time ragpicker, Mayer in 1915, bought the rights to distribute The Birth of a Nation in New England. By filing understated reports of grosses with Griffith’s company and appropriating to himself much of the producers’ share of the profits, Mayer was able to amass his first million dollars. He used the money to launch himself as a movie producer and within a decade he was the studio head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and the mightiest of the Jewish despots who turned American film-making into a anti-creative factory system in which White geniuses like Griffith could not function…
Mayer had two sons-in-law. He set up one as a partner in a rival film company and conferred an MGM earldom on the other, David O. Selznick, the son of a Jewish immigrant from Kiev whose over-extended movie empire had collapsed in the 1920s. The younger Selznick spent a few depression years at Mayer’s studio as a $4,000-a-week executive — the situation inspiring the acid comment, “The son-in-law also rises.” He then began a career as an independent producer and in 1936, on the advice of a White female associate, he bought the film rights to the newly published Gone with the Wind, a 1,037-page novel by an Atlanta woman, Margaret Mitchell…
Thanks for a very well written review. If you can, write a review of the whole trilogy, I’d love to read it. If a young person is able to write such a detailed and quality review of a forgotten book from 1902, that person is my friend. Keep writing my friend.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.