Under Dateline of October 6, 2006, the Southern Poverty Law Center, dealt with in Chapter 13 of our Conservative Debate Handbook ("How To Recognize The Bigot In The Argument"), published an article under by-line of one Alexander Zaitchik, entitled "Selling Racism." Since it was typical of the tactics of Left-wing hate groups in America, there may be some benefit to Conservative students, who must often come to grips with such methodology, if we analyze the technique, paragraph by paragraph.
Between the title and by line, there are two sentences: Pat Buchanan's latest book is a white nationalist screed. But that hasn't stopped it from climbing the best-seller charts. The writer does not bother to define what he means by "white nationalist" in the article, although he gives some clues as to what such an identified person might believe in the specific ideas that he singles out for the verbal sneers that follow. However, there is no basis, anywhere in the article, that would justify the coupling of an undefined classification with the pejorative word "screed." We would suggest that anyone, not previously conditioned to accept Mr. Zaitchik's ex cathedra assumptions, or the shibboleths behind them, would only be able to scratch his head in bewilderment as to any actual point by the writer--other than to insult those who disagree with him. The second sentence does offer some clarity. Whatever Mr. Zaitchik is going to describe, he is very unhappy that so many other people agree with it.
The first two paragraphs of the article read as follows:
Since the start of his latest book tour, Patrick Buchanan has appeared on just about every major television and cable network in the country, often more than once. He's been on NBC's "Today" show, the three most watched news programs on FOX, CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," and countless radio programs. During one four-day period in late August, the author was welcomed on no less than five NBC-affiliated programs. Together, these appearances have made Buchanan's new book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, a runaway bestseller.
The three-time presidential candidate is no stranger to the major media, being personally acquainted with many of those who interviewed him. A veteran columnist with the Creators Syndicate and an analyst for MSNBC, Buchanan was a founding member of three prime-time network or cable channel talk shows and has written for many of the nation's major newspapers and magazines. That might explain the kid-gloves treatment he got from virtually all his interviewers, most of whom did not seem to have read or understood the book they were helping to publicize.
The part up until the last sentence seems reasonably factual. The rest of the article, however, clearly demonstrates that those who did not understand the book, or at least the factual considerations discussed, are Mr. Zaitchik and his promoters in the SPLC. That is, giving them the benefit of the doubt on the question of sincerity. Since none of us can look into one another's heads, we are pretty well forced to give the Dr. Goebbels and Alexander Zaitchiks of this world a presumption of sincerity. But what can, we say, about what follows?
In fact, the book reflects racial views that have now veered to the extreme. White America is changing color, Buchanan argues--"one of the greatest tragedies in human history." The Mexican government is involved in a plot to take over the Southwestern United States, and parts of this country already look like the "Third World."
Here, we have one writer characterizing another writer who is troubled by a dramatic phenomenon--i.e., the racial nature of the population changing from overwhelmingly White to non-White, which even President Clinton discussed in his last State of the Union message in 2000--as "extreme." Note, Zaitchik does not deny the change, he simply chooses to call Buchanan's objection to it, "extreme." Those who state unpleasant truths are often seen as "extreme" by those who seek to deny reality. We would not even bother to comment, were this not an example of methodology, which the Left has used for generations to silence debate. As for the Mexican government? It has openly championed the rush across our Southern border--and parts of the United States, today, do indeed resemble "Third World" neighborhoods. But Mr. Zaitchik's sneering at reality continues, as he comments on some of Buchanan's points:
The segregated South wasn't all bad "culturally--blacks and whites were united, after all. America, despite what its founders wrote, was a nation formed not on the basis of creed but rather a homogeneous ethnic culture. To put it plainly, State of Emergency is a white nationalist tract. The thesis is that America must retain a white majority to survive as a nation. It is rooted in a blood-and-soil nationalism more blood than soil. The echoes of Nazi ideology are clear and chilling. As Buchanan helpfully explained to John King, who was interviewing him in one of his several CNN appearances: "We gotta get into race and ethnic questions."
Here, admittedly, a suggestion of what that undefined term, "white nationalist," is supposed to mean; yet note the clear contradiction in the acknowledgment of unity in the Old South. Zaitchik sees no need to explain. He is about smearing, not understanding. He also neglects to explain why we are supposed to assume that the segregated South was "all bad 'culturally,' as his prose implies. His next suggestion, that Buchanan is extreme in believing that America was formed "not on the basis of creed but rather a homogeneous ethnic culture," "despite what its founders wrote," is either a blatant example of how exponents of the "Big Lie" falsify history by sneers and innuendo, or a clear demonstration of Zaitchik's total confusion.
There is no conflict, whatsoever, between viewing the original American settlements as an homogeneous ethnic expression and what the founders wrote; and while some of the settlements were intended to enable particular "creeds" to associate in safety with kindred spirits, those settlements had nonetheless a clear ethnic character. The most obvious example would be the New England Puritans, who had earlier traveled to Holland for religious freedom, but returned to England to maintain their English ethnicity. As for what the founders wrote? Not only did Jefferson write at length on the importance of race in his one book; but he decided to purchase Louisiana for "our brethren and children," in order to protect the original settlements from Hispanic neighbors. (See Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805 & his letter of August 12, 1803, to John C. Breckenridge.) As set forth in Chapter 15 of the Conservative Debate Handbook, George Washington had expressed similar concerns earlier.
If Zaitchik is aware of any of this, his disingenuousness should offend even the most "liberal" reader. If he is unaware of our history, he ought not to be passing judgment on those of us who would preserve historic purpose. That Zaitchik would seek to equate Jeffersonian values--for that is what he is actually assailing--with the Nazi movement, demonstrates not only a lack of intellectual integrity, but either pure ignorance or a most outrageous endeavor to inject an absolute "red herring" into the discussion. Indeed, while new nations may arise from new settlements in sparsely populated regions--as the settler nations that arose in America, South Africa, Australia and Canada--the forward progress and continuity of such settler nations, is no less identified with lines of descent--the blood lines of the families involved--than in the case of any older nation.
On Zaitchik's particular point, the apparent suggestion that it is extreme to argue that "blood" defines a nation, he is basically denying all of human history in the pursuit of fantasy. If lines of descent, blood lines (race and ethnicity) do not define a nation, just what possibly can? The implications are total instability--a virtual musical chair game, where nothing is real and everything that is apparent, but a notion of the moment.
Nations, historically, grew out of tribes--the extended families of an expanding population. Indeed, the terms "tribe" and "nation" are frequently used interchangeably--as for example the various Indian Nations. The association of nations with particular lands, was much slower in developing, as primitive peoples often moved around, following food sources, only settling specific domains with the development of farm based societies.
The speciousness of Zaitchik's playing the Nazi card, is easily demonstrated. Yes, the Nazis may have acknowledged heredity in the nature of a nation--as did countless generations of human societies representing other views, cultures, races and creeds--among them many generations of Americans, who sang of "land where my fathers died," at every patriotic function. The Nazis also built roads and achieved major break-throughs in aeronautics. What made the Nazis evil was the use of lies, intimidation and bloody terror, to impose a totally regimented monolithic society in place of the traditional values of millions of Germans, culminating in the slaughter of tens of millions of innocents during World War II. That they retained some normal values in the process makes no point at all.
Would Mr. Zaitchik claim that a provision of Medical services for the poor was an echo of Communist ideology? Certainly the Communists advocated same. But the problem with such an argument is that for over Two Thousand years prior to the birth of modern Communism, physicians took a sacred oath (Hippocratic) to treat the sick, regardless of their means. Zaitchik's Nazi argument tells us nothing whatsoever about Pat Buchanan or State of Emergency, but should be a red flag to anyone, who still imagines that the Southern Poverty Law Center has intellectual or moral integrity. But to continue with the article:
State Of Emergency unapologetically reflects Buchanan's insistence on the centrality of race to the United States and its culture. "This idea of America as a creedal nation bound together not by 'blood or birth or soil' but by 'ideals' that must be taught and learned . . .is demonstrably false," Buchanan writes in the book.
Simply put, America is not a nation of ideas. It is a nation of people -- white people. Buchanan is especially overt in making this case when he endorses the view of his late mentor and editor Sam Francis, that American and European civilizations could never have been created without the "genetic endowments" of whites. He goes on to describe discussions of race as "the Great Taboo"; to ignore the role of race, he adds, is "like not telling one's doctor of a recurring pain that could kill you."
None of this seems to bother Buchanan's cheerleaders.
Note, again the technique. Zaitchik is not able to advance one argument to even cast doubt on the Buchanan points. His language sneers at what he cannot answer. It is the same technique that Leftist Professors have used for generations to intimidate and confuse. In the classroom, the Professor might roll his eyes, arch his eye-brows, perhaps tilt his head with disdain. If he was really sure that he could not answer the argument being disparaged, he might even pretend to guffaw and slap his knee. Zaitchik is stuck with his keyboard. While he earns an "F" in Debate and Logic, he demonstrates an excellent grasp of the techniques of the Academic bully.
Yet in his failure to grasp the basic concept of reasoned analysis, Zaitchik repeatedly shoots himself in the foot. Civilizations have always reflected the character of the people who created them. One can go anywhere in the world, and he will find that the same human root stocks create cultures reflecting the same basic characteristics. It is obvious to anyone who chooses to examine, rather than sling slogans, that American and European civilizations reflect the "genetic endowments" of those who created them. As for the quoted Buchanan analogy about ignoring race, and failing to tell "one's doctor of a recurring pain that could kill you?" Buchanan's point is as apt as Zaitchik's selection of what to disparage is clumsy. Not only is race "the key to history"--as Disraeli observed in the 19th Century;--you will not find a competent physician who is not aware that racial genetics affect both human susceptibilities and resistance levels to various common pathogens and familiar medical problems. But the SPLC hatchet man continues:
"Congratulations on the response to your book," said Lou Dobbs, the CNN anchorman who has made a profession of attacking illegal immigration in story after story, as he introduced his old CNN colleague. Dobbs then offered up his own view that President Bush was carrying on an "outright war" against middle-class Americans by allowing illegal immigration. Wrapping up the interview, Dobbs concluded: "The book is State of Emergency. It's No. 3 on the best-selling list. ...I'm going to repeat it one more time. The book is State of Emergency. Pat Buchanan, always good to talk to you. ...[Y]ou've got a lot of readers, so keep it rolling."
Dobbs isn't the only one helping Buchanan keep his book rolling.
While Dobbs gets somewhat kinder treatment than some of the others being disparaged in the onslaught--as Zaitchik appears to largely rely upon his initial efforts to carry over and make Dobbs appear suspect just for praising Buchanan--one should not overlook the suggestion of insincerity in the comment about making "a profession of attacking illegal immigration," implying something questionable in Dobbs' motive. So, too, in the remark about President Bush. Yet note, at the same time, that Zaitchik is again unable to offer any reason for anyone to take exception to what Dobbs said. Over and over again, the techniques of the "big lie" by innuendo. But our would-be Goebbels is not done:
James Edwards, a former volunteer in Buchanan's 2000 presidential campaign and current host of the Memphis AM radio show "The Political Cesspool," did his part, too. But this show was no mainstream broadcast. It has featured an array of past and present Klansmen and neo-Nazis, a veritable "Who's Who" of the radical right. In an exultant E-mail sent out by the radio show after Buchanan was featured, long-time white supremacist Winston Smith celebrated.
"Don't ever let anyone tell you that this broadcast doesn't matter, my friends," he wrote, "because when the likes of Pat Buchanan agrees to be on your program, he does so only after his people have researched the program and decided it's in their interest."
James Edwards is a Tennessee patriot, proud of his Southern heritage, and willing to speak out against the legal, moral and spiritual degeneration of contemporary American society. This writer has been a guest on his program for the entire hour, and found no taint of anything that was not in accordance with the values of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, while Zaitchik employs the classic methodology of propagandists for the great Totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century, Edwards champions a free society of individually responsible citizens, based upon the moral and social values advanced by men such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Robert E. Lee, etc.. Moreover, Edwards refuses to apologize for or retreat from those values. As such, he has been previously targeted for SPLC smears.
State of Emergency is not the first book to reflect Buchanan's racialist philosophy. In 2002, Buchanan's The Death of the West warned white Christendom against a looming demographic tipping point. (The book's message so energized former Klan leader David Duke that Duke fantasized on his own radio show last year about winning the presidency with Buchanan as his running mate.) It was in that book -- edited by Francis, chief ideologue of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens -- that Buchanan first began using the explicit language of white nationalism. In his footnotes to the Death of the West, the former Nixon speechwriter even cited the late William Pierce, author of the race-war novel The Turner Diaries (the blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing) and the founder of America's then-leading neo-Nazi group, to back up his own arguments.
The paragraph is so littered with half-truths and innuendo, seeking to smear the book by association, that it would waste space to respond to all that it attempts to suggest. The best way to illustrate what is wrong with it, would be for us to demonstrate the technique by dismissing the "Civil Rights" movement of the 1950s and 1960s, as a Communist ploy, citing how each program advocated, not only paralleled but reiterated an approach towards undermining American society, adopted by the Communist Party in the late 1920s. While the movement did indeed pursue those ends--and Martin Luther King received considerable aid from known Communists, as well as training at the Communistic Highlander Folk School in 1957--that point is no substitute for actually confronting the arguments of non-Communists, who also advocated the programs involved. We deal with those arguments, in some depth, in Chapters 5 and 19 of the Debate Handbook; while Chapters 3, 13 and 16 deal with related subjects.
Here the SPLC smear artist--if so heavy-handed an effort may be characterized as artistry--has lumped together some very disparate types. While, in our opinion, both David Duke and William Pierce crossed lines which put them clearly outside any acceptable aspect of the American Conservative tradition, that hardly means that everything they ever said was wrong. Nor is what Duke fantasized about in any way attributable to Pat Buchanan; nor does referring to the fantasy of someone else, in any way answer any of Buchanan's arguments! Once again, it is clear that Zaitchik has no reasoned argument to offer--only more trash from the sorry bag of tricks of a second rate propagandist.
As for Sam Francis, a respected Conservative intellect, who became a target of the intellectual bullies of the Left during his last years, for the apparent "crime" of continuing to champion Jeffersonian values, and the Council of Conservative Citizens, which we were pleased to address this past summer? Anytime Mr. Zaitchik wants to debate their merits, we will be happy to accommodate him. (He will not enjoy the experience.) But, again, none of the endless sneers and innuendo challenge even one of Buchanan's actual points. Yet Zaitchik is still not quite done:
Once again, to make his case in State of Emergency, Buchanan relies on a trove of extreme-right sources. His urgent call for thwarting the "invasion" of non-European immigrants leans heavily on material written by hate group members or postings on hate sites, [Again the cavalier attribution of "hate" as the motivation of those who would defend their traditions and heritage, while we are apparently supposed to believe that those who seek to undermine that heritage are motivated by love and enlightenment. This is clear 'projection' of the SPLC motivation to others, but will not bear the test of reasoned analysis.]
with citations to nearly every sector of the hate movement, [sic] from neo-Nazis to neo-Confederates. He cites the work of white supremacist James Lubinskas; Edward Rubinstein, of the white nationalist think tank National Policy Institute; Clyde Wilson, a board member of the racist and secessionist League of the South; [more mislabeling of those who dissent from the dogmatic pursuit of an undifferentiated humanity by the SPLC and its ideological kin, without any actual argument against what any of those being gratuitously labeled have ever advocated.]
and Wayne Lutton, a veteran immigrant- and gay-hater. [Note: While Conservatives "hate" and are "racist," Zaitchik refers to homosexuals, in friendly slang, as "gay." Since we are not familiar with Lutton's writing, we do not know if he actually hates homosexuals, or simply deplores their conduct, as has every major Western Faith for thousands of years. But we cannot expect Zaitchik to make so intelligent a distinction.] Buchanan also quotes Lutton's anti-immigrant hate journal The Social Contract.
Buchanan is equally schooled in hate from abroad, mentioning work of British white supremacist Derek Turner published in the American hate journal The Occidental Quarterly, which argues "the civilization and free governments that whites have created" will collapse as they becomes a minority. [Does Zaitchik point to any example of a comparably free society in one of the lands, from which the present flood of immigration, has been coming? Does such an example exist? Like petty charlatans throughout history, he does not hesitate to besmirch the message bearers.]
And Buchanan knows the oldies-but-goodies, quoting English politician Enoch Powell approvingly at the beginning of his final chapter. Powell was dumped by the Tory leadership in 1968 for claiming that non-white immigration would cause "rivers of blood" to flow in Britain; he has been a white nationalist icon ever since. (In the book, Buchanan claims Powell was essentially correct in his analysis of the problem, but that his "Rivers of Blood" speech was taken out of its original context and distorted.)
Whether Enoch Powell--one of the few genuine intellectuals in the British politics of his era--was "dumped" or simply lost out in a battle for leadership of the Conservative effort to oust the Socialists and Prime Minister Harold Wilson, is debatable. The essential point here, is that Powell is being disparaged by one who does not and cannot answer any of Powell or Buchanan's arguments. As for "rivers of blood?" We are very early in the "Multi-cultural" age, but England, today, is a far less placid land than it was even in the 1960s.
Finally, Zaitchik returns to the late Sam Francis--obviously seen as a threat by the SPLC:
Buchanan is especially enamored of his deceased friend Sam Francis, the white supremacist who was fired in 1995 by the Washington Times for breaking the "race taboo" and went on to a 10-year career editing the Citizens Informer, a bimonthly newsletter put out by the Council of Conservative Citizens, which grew out of the segregationist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and '60s. [The organization was never called the "White" Citizens Councils. It did defend the Constitutional right of States to maintain separate school systems, and published factual & thought provoking materials to encourage public debate on many Constitutional and educational issues.]
Far more than Buchanan's friend and editor, Francis was his mentor. Buchanan knows Francis' racist oeuvre inside and out, citing some seven Francis pieces. Buchanan's basic argument in State Of Emergency--America should be a white country and dark-skinned immigrants threaten it -- was made by Francis for years.
Now, through his old friend Buchanan, Francis continues to be heard from beyond the grave.
As, thankfully, do George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. We suspect that were he more candid, Zaitchik would have to acknowledge that he hates them as much as he hates Francis. Early in the essay, Zaitchik sought to draw a distinction between respect for American ethnic culture and "what its founders wrote." He neglected, of course, to quote anything they wrote. However, we are not so reticent:
Washington closed his Farewell Address proclaiming a variety of what Zaitchik besmirches as "a blood-and-soil nationalism" that "echoes .. Nazi ideology:"
....actuated by that fervent love towards it [his country], which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government--the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers. [September 17, 1796]
While seeking to encourage immigration, particularly on the frontier, Washington very clearly wanted to preserve "a homogeneous ethnic culture:"
...if the Spaniards instead of restricting, were to throw open their ports and invite our trade. But if the commerce of the country should embrace this channel, and connexions be formed; experience has taught us... how next to impracticable it is to divert it; and if that should be the case, the Atlantic States (especially as those to the westward will in a great degree fill with foreigners) will be no more to the present union, except to excite perhaps very justly our fears, than the Country of California which is still more westward, and belonging to another power. [July 25, 1785 to David Humphreys.]
My opinion, with respect to emigration is, that except of useful Mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement: while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people.[November 15, 1794 to Vice President John Adams.]
It should be noted that Washington was not suggesting an assimilation with Third World peoples. He encouraged European immigration from among the upper and middle classes, never from outside that region, in many personal letters. He also showed a clear understanding of ethnic traits. For example, in his May 28, 1788, letter to Rev. Francis Vanderkemp, he discussed the traits expected from Dutch settlers: Under a good government ... this Country certainly promises greater advantages than almost any other to persons of moderate property, who are determined to be sober, industrious and virtuous members of Society. And ... a knowledge that these are the general characteristics of your compatriots would be a principal reason to consider their advent as a valuable acquisition to our infant settlements.
Jefferson considered race of towering importance, writing in his one book, Notes On The State Of Virginia (1782): "To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history."
In the same book, Jefferson displayed his understanding of the effects of a large scale immigration by people born into culturally very different societies, correctly predicting political effects, America later experienced from such migratory waves, as well as a preview of his later reasoning on the Louisiana Purchase, mentioned above (Answer To Query VIII):
But is this founded in good policy? ...are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other. . . . They [the expected immigrants] will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. ...
These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest for a verification of these conjectures.
What the founders wrote, it seems, was very similar to what Buchanan writes today. Any confusion or dichotomy is in the mind of Mr. Zaitchik.
We are not certain what drives Alexander Zaitchik. Apparently, this "creed" and "ideal" loving soul can not bear the idea that any White racial group might want to preserve the continuity of its existence (something he repeatedly labels "white supremacist"). To Mr. Zaitchik, to want to survive as a recognizable people, you must be driven by "hate." And if he really believes that, he is one very, very sick little pseudo-intellectual.
Race, genetics, lines of descent, determine the ongoing nature of all life forms. No one in thoroughbred racing would think of denying their importance; no one engaged in the breeding of domesticated animals of any sort would ignore them. Nor would anyone engaged in medical research for human kind. The notion that genes are important in all fields until you come to personality traits and culture building proclivities, but there have no effect at all, is the stuff for tea parties with "mad hatters." It has no place in a serious discussion of a people's future.
Unfortunately, the SPLC and Zaitchik can lose every debate, and still succeed in their purpose. "Selling Racism" advances not one reasoned argument against Buchanan's thesis. But it could make the debate, itself, seem so ugly to many mainstream American Conservatives, that they will remain silent on the side lines, while our heritage is lost. Zaitchik's function is merely a different manifestation of what the "Reign of Terror" accomplished in France, what Trotsky's murderous Red Army accomplished in Russia, what Ernst Rohm's Nazi thugs accomplished in the streets of German cities. It is all about fear & intimidation. If it continues to work here, you can kiss America, as eight generations have known her, "good-bye."
As between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Zaitchik, we will let Thomas Jefferson define America. As between "selling racism" (as Zaitchik defines "racism") and betraying heritage, we will take "selling racism." Alexander Zaitchik would have been better suited to instruct in a Nazi or Communist reeducation camp, where those who had dared to question monolithic dogma were given a final chance to reconsider the "error" of their ways. As a pretender to American values, he is only ridiculous.