Racism, Nationalism, and Fascism
Rich Winkel
** Topic: Quigley: Racism Nationalism Fascism **
** Written 9:43 PM Oct 12, 1994 by cberlet in cdp:publiceye **
Racism, Nationalism, and Fascism
by Margaret Quigley Political Research Associates
Adapted from a panel presentation at UMass, Amherst
April 24, 1992
I represent Political Research Associates, an independent
research group which has monitored the political right wing for
the past ten years. I was asked here today to talk about the
current state of the political right in the United States and to
detail a number of disturbing trends that we have seen developing
over the past several years. Huey Long once said that if fascism
came to America, it would come on a platform of Americanism,
meaning patriotic nationalism. At Political Research Associates,
we believe that platform is being forged today in the U.S. by
organizations like Buchanan's America First and in Europe by
nationalist organizations in the newly independent states in
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. While the racist right
in the U.S. is still cause for concern and certainly the emergence
of the skinheads as the stormtroopers of the racist right is very
disturbing, it is on the more moderate right that developments are
most distressing. In analysis of the political right, as in most
things, viewpoint is everything, so when I make reference to more
or less moderate groups, make sure you keep the context in mind.
While we find David Duke worrisome at PRA, we find the
near-universal insistence that there is a substantial difference
between him and Patrick Buchanan even more disturbing. Over the
past few years David Duke's neo-Nazi politics have themselves
become more legitimate in public discourse, and Duke's positions
have sanitized Patrick Buchanan's racism and anti-Semitism. The
near-universal insistence that there is a substantial difference
between Duke and Buchanan further strengthens and legitimizes
Buchanan in the public arena.
I have a cartoon from the Buffalo News stuck to my
computer. It asks the question, "Someone said a couple of years
ago that it was the end of history. So what is it now?" The
cartoon answers, "Rewind. Germany is reunited...Germany and Japan
are growing world powers. The Soviet Union becomes Russia.
Balkanization is a big issue." Rewind: it reminds me of when Paul
Weyrich, a key figure in the New Right, the man who named the
Moral Majority and founded the Heritage Foundation , was asked
what he wanted politically and he said, "Rollback." And echoing
beneath the words "rewind" and "rollback" is the word "reaction."
Recall that Mussolini explained that Fascism is reaction. You can
have reaction without fascism but you can't have fascism without
reaction. We live in reactionary times.
While it has become a commonplace to make comparisons to
Germany in the Wiemar era, the situation today is marked by
extreme international instability coupled with an international
economic depression and a powerful resurgence of racist and
nationalist fervor in both the U.S. and Europe. Many of the traits
that typified fascism are appearing with greater regularity and in
greater depth among Buchanan's wing of the U.S. right; they have,
of course, been endemic on the racist right for many years. When
we look at the traits that typified fascism at PRA we identify ten
specific traits that are building blocks of fascism. I'm not going
to discuss them in detail here, but I do want to list them because
they will appear later in this presentation. The ten traits are:
racial nationalism, a glorification of violence, aggressive
militarism, nationalism and super-patriotism, dehumanization and
scapegoating of the enemy; a cult of personality around a
charismatic leader, coupled with an authoritarian reliance on a
leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to the
electorate, reaction against the values of modernism, exhortations
for the masses, the volk, to join voluntarily in a heroic
mission--often metaphysical and romanticized in character,
elements of national socialist ideological roots, such as
ostensible support for the working class or farmers, and in the
case of National Socialist and clerical fascism, race hatred and
political anti-Semitism. In 1928, the right-wing intellectual
journal Tat said, "These times long for authority, they are tired
of liberal ideas." In this presentation I would like to discuss
the current reactionary attack on modernity and liberalism, and
the increasing appearance in U.S. political debate of those traits
that are the building blocks of fascism.
Over the past two years, in a forum where David Duke's
newfound viability as a serious political candidate has pushed
political debate again sharply to the right, a major split in the
conservative movement has taken place between the New Right and
the Old Right, or what are called the neo-conservatives and
paleo-conservatives. The immediate context of the split was the
Gulf War and U.S. foreign policy, particularly its relationship
toward Israel. From this schism, Patrick Buchanan, who says
proudly, "We are Old Right and Old Church," has emerged as the
dominant figure of the paleoconservatives, whose new, harder right
politics are most notably marked by a more explicitly racialist
position. Joining Buchanan in the new America First movement is
the right-wing of the libertarian movement, represented by
Llewellyn Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, the cultural conservatives
of the Rockford Institute and Chronicles magazine, and the right
wing of the Republican Party represented by Paul Weyrich and the
Free Congress Foundation. All of these players share a deep
concern with issues of race, national character, and the
limitations of democracy, or in other words, with the potent brew
of racism, nationalism and fascism.
On the other side of this schism are Neo-conservatives.
The term "neo-conservative" was originally limited to a fairly
small group of conservatives, led by Normon Podhoretz and Midge
Decter whose fervent anti-communism, commitment to the security of
Israel, and support for an aggressive foreign policy led them to
ally themselves with the New Right, even though many
neo-conservatives embrace a number of more liberal domestic
policies. As described by Buchanan, are "Ex-Great Society
liberals, almost all of them, they support the welfare state and
Big Government. They are pro-civil rights and affirmative action,
though anti-quota. They are pro-foreign aid, especially for
Israel. They favor higher immigration quotas and some demand open
borders. Many are viscerally hostile to the Old Right and to any
America First foreign policy. They want to use America's wealth to
promote `global democracy' abroad and impose `democratic values'
in our public schools." Although Buchanan doesn't mention it, neo-
conservatives are deeply anticommunist. Neo-conservative has
become to some extent a term of art representing the "anti-Buke"
forces, and now represents not only the prototypical Midge Decter,
Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Norman Podhoretz but also such old-style
conservatives as William Buckley, Jack Kemp and George Will.
Let's back up for a minute. When the New Right coalitions
first formed in the late 1970's, the key members were the
Christian right, such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, the
social issue activists, concerned with such issues as abortion,
homosexuality and secular humanism, and the more secular electoral
right such as Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress
Foundation. The New Right coalitions differentiated themselves
from the traditional Goldwater-style partisans of the Old Right in
two key ways: they eschewed the explicitly racist rhetoric that
had often typified the Old Right and they embraced the idea of an
expansionist, rather than limited, government, that would
intervene to enforce the traditional values and social issues dear
to the New Right's heart. Goldwater himself said of the New Right,
"These people are not conservatives. They are revolutionaries."
And let's not forget that Wilhelm Reich said, "Reactionary
concepts plus revolutionary emotion result in fascist mentality."
For ten years, the New Right coalitions held together
remarkably well. There were some defections over the issue of Sun
Myung Moon's funding of certain key organizations in the right
wing in the mid-1980's, but it wasn't until the past two years
that a number of very deep fissures appeared in the coalitions who
helped launch the Reagan Revolution. In addition to the paleo-
conservative neo-conservative break up, the Christian right found
itself in substantial disarray after the Bakker and Swaggart
scandals and began to break into two wings, the more extreme of
which began to exploit fascist themes.
On the religious right, those groups associated with
anti-communism as a political ideology, such as Beverly LaHaye's
Concerned Women for America, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and
the para-church ministries of Pat Robertson, went into eclipse.
Those religious right groups that are showing the greatest growth
are those based on the issues of social decay and the need for a
war over culture. Patrick Buchanan calls this kulturkampf, a
struggle over culture, in a turn of phrase that evokes the Second
World War and Nazi values. In this context, the concept of "cult"
or spiritual faith is felt to resonate within the larger concept
of culture.
More militant groups which are moving to the forefront of
the Christian right include Christian Reconstructionism, a
militant and explicitly political manifestation of fundamentalist
Protestantism. Rejecting the notion of a Christianity removed from
the world, the Christian Reconstructionist's goal is to replace
U.S. democracy (increasingly seen as ineffectual and corrupt) with
an Old Testament theocracy that would enforce biblical law as
written. Similarly, the belligerent Operation Rescue has eclipsed
more mainstream "pro-family" organizations, as evidenced by the
fact that Beverly LaHaye's Concerned Women for America has had to
downsize its monthly newsletter and is now spending part of each
newsletter cheerleading for Operation Rescue. Shepherding
discipleship, closely allied with Christian Reconstructionism,
believes in the necessity of the individual's total submission to
a spiritual leader, who makes for the individual such deeply
personal decisions as where to work and whom to marry. All three
of these movements are marked by highly disciplined, hierarchical,
authoritarian organization, an explicit rejection of the values of
modernism and democracy, the heroic glorification of militarism
and violence, superpatriotism, and nationalism. The nationalism
embraced by these theocrats if that of the Christian nation that
they envision as being established in the U.S. All call for the
masses to join in a metaphysical battle against the forces of
evil, typically presented as the forces of multiculturalism and
secular humanism. All couple their ideas with the demonization of
the enemy.
In the wake of the break-up of the Soviet empire,
anti-communism as a political ideology, which provided a good deal
of the cement in the New Right coalitions has become unavailable.
What will increasingly fill that void is a shared politics of
race, nationalism, and xenophobia. The key issues of this new
political alignment are attacks on immigration and
multiculturalism, bilingualism, and opposition to Native American
treaty rights. This is coupled with a new eugenics which links
these racially-based political differences with a belief in
biological differences to forge a new racial nationalism. John
Stuart Mill said that nationalism makes people not care about "any
portion of the human species, save that which is called by the
same name and speaks the same language as themselves."
On the right-wing, the background for the major assaults
on the notions of multiculturalism and political correctness by
the paleoconservatives is the idea that non-white hordes are
storming the borders...and the academy. Buchanan himself has
explicitly linked the immigration and multiculturalism, quoting
with approval a spokesman from the xenophobic and racist American
Immigration Control Foundation, "The combined forces of open
immigration and multi-culturalism constitute a mortal threat to
American civilization...The U.S. is receiving a never-ending mass
immigration of non-Western peoples, leading inexorably to
white-minority status in the coming decades [while] a race-based
cultural diversity is attacking, with almost effortless success,
the legitimacy of our Western culture." In another article,
"Immigration Reform or Racial Purity?," Buchanan was equally
clear: "The burning issue here has almost nothing to do with
economics, almost everything to do with race and ethnicity. If
British subjects, fleeing a depression, were pouring into this
country through Canada, there would be few alarms. The central
objection to the present flood of illegals is they are not
English-speaking white people from Western Europe; they are
Spanish-speaking brown and black people from Mexico, Latin America
and the Caribbean."
What multiculturalism represents to the paleoconservatives
is both a reworking of the Old Right's attacks on secular
humanism, and a rejection of modernism with its focus on the
individual. Historically, right-wing attacks on secular humanism
had two sides: an aggressively anticommunist foreign policy which
is coupled with a domestic commitment to purge the fellow
travelers in our schools. With the loss of anti-communism as the
focus of a political ideology's foreign policy, the right has
increasingly turned to attack secular humanism as a domestic
policy, which these days is identified with multi-culturalism. To
the Old Right and the paleo- conservatives, multiculturalism is
just secular humanism in new clothes: it is the domestic policy of
bolshevism. Multiculturalism as a political movement represents to
them the agitation of explicitly modernist groups, such as
anti-racist activists, feminists, political leftists, and gays and
lesbians, for increased political power. The Old Right coalition
rejects multiculturalism because is has dehumanized, in fact it
has demonized, these groups as so it cannot allow them peaceful
access to more power. In terms of the increasing adoption of
fascist themes by Buchanan's hard right, multiculturalism, like
class struggle, is a concept that cannot be incorporated into the
fascist state. Fascism requires a denial of the basic tenets of
multiculturalism: that racism is an important and pervasive
problem in U.S. society and that a coalition of groups supporting
multiculturalism have been unfairly excluded from positions of
influence in U.S. politics and culture.
It's important to state clearly that neo-conservatives,
for the most part, share Buchanan's distaste for multiculturalism.
The American Spectator, for example, has argued, "The preservation
of the existing ethnocultural character of the United States is
not in itself an illegitimate goal. Shorn of Buchanan's more
unhygenic rhetoric, and with the emphasis on culture rather than
ethnicity, it's a goal many conservatives share. If anything, a
concern that the ethnocultural character of the United States is
being changed in unwholesome ways is the quality that
distinguishes the conservatism of Commentary and the Public
Interest from the more economically minded conservatism that
pervades the Washington think tanks." Some Black conservative
intellectuals, recruited and funded by corporate sponsors, sound
the same refrain.
It is therefore legitimate to argue that the distinction
between the old and new conservatives on the issue of race is
slim, as witnessed by Dan Quayle's statement, "The message of
David Duke is anti-big government, get out of my pocketbook, cut
my taxes, put welfare people back to work. That's a very popular
message. The problem is the messenger. David Duke, neo-Nazi,
ex-Klansman, basically a bad person." Certainly Quayle's position
disingenuously misstates the nature of Duke's current and
historical message and positions the Republican Party firmly
behind a politics of race that appeals to the worst fears and
motives of white Americans. And Quayle's assumption that David
Duke's repackaged message is not itself thoroughly racist is at
best dangerous folly.
At the same time, however the distinction between the
approaches the old and new conservatives take on race is very
significant because it is the distinction between racism and
racial nationalism. Racial nationalism, a key component of
fascism, is the assertion that the national character is carried
by a particular race and is transmitted through racial blood. This
is why the emblem of many KKK groups includes a drop of blood.
David Duke won 55 percent of the white vote in Louisiana by
arguing, "I think the basic culture of this country is European
and Christian and I think that if we lose that, we lose
America....I don't think we should suppress other races, but I
think if we lose that white--what's the word for it--that white
dominance in America, with it we lose America." Under racial
nationalism, national and racial statuses both become immutable
traits, and it is the responsibility of the state, in its
obligation to defend the people (now racially defined) to enforce
racial hygiene. While systemic racism enforced by a hostile,
repressive state is dangerous, the catastrophic power of racial
nationalism, as expressed in the activities of the racial
nationalist and clerical fascist regimes in Eastern Europe during
World War II, represents a difference not just in degree.
Despite the efforts of the paleoconservatives to position
themselves as the representatives of traditional American values,
the paleoconservatives in fact exhibit a deep disdain for
democracy. Rockford Institute's magazine Chronicles, as described
by one of its friends, has a distinctly volkish air, "[It] is
somewhat critical of free markets and spreading democracy. It
looks back to agrarian society, small towns, religious values. It
sees modern times as too secular, too democratic. There's a
distrust of cities and of cultural pluralism, which they find
partly responsible for social decay in American life." Buchanan
has also written extensively on this topic, referring dismissively
to "those who worship democracy" and supporting the imposition of
anti-egalitarian and quasi-dictatorial rule in the United States.
Buchanan has supported the use of death squads, arguing they are
often the only way to avoid wars that cannot be won by a
government restricted to democratic methods. In one article, he
wrote, "Faced with rising urban terror in 1976, the Argentine
military seized power and waged a war of counter-terror. With
military and police and free lance operators, between 6,000 and
150,000 leftists disappeared. Brutal, yes; also successful. Today,
peace reigns in Argentina; security has been restored." In his
call for "a non-suicidal foreign policy," Buchanan stated baldly,
"The point here is quite simple. Because a nation has a free
press, free elections and a bicameral legislature does not make it
a valued ally of the United States; and because a nation is ruled
by an autocrat, king or a general does not make it an enemy....Not
all our friends are democratic; and not all democrats are our
friends."
In fact in his distaste for democracy, Buchanan has
explicitly embraced racial nationalism. In one column, titled
"Worship Democracy? A Dissent," Buchanan argued "The world hails
democracy in principle. In practice, most men believe there are
things higher in the order of value--among them, tribe and nation,
family and faith." In April of 1990, he made a similar statement:
"It is not economics that sends men to the barricades; tribe and
race, language and faith, history and culture, are more important
that a nation's GNP." Buchanan has written, "Multi-ethnic states,
of which we are one, are an endangered species." Even more
disturbing than that statement is the fact that Buchanan quoted as
his expert on this topic Tomislav Sunic writing in the
Conservative Review. The Conservative Review, which was launched
with considerable assistance from Paul Weyrich and other New Right
figures, is edited by Roger Pearson, a man who leads the new
eugenicist movement. Tomislav Sunic has allied himself with the
French intellectual neo-fascist right represented by Nouvelle
Ecole. Nouvelle Ecole represents another disturbing echo of
fascist alignments: it is an advocate of the intellectual branch
of racial nationalism that undergirds Third Position politics. We
will return to the Third Position later.
The embrace of racial nationalism by the
paleo-conservatives has been extensive. Chronicles magazine wrote
in July of 1990, "What will it be like in the next century when,
as Time magazine so cheerfully predicts, white people will be in
the minority. Our survival depends on our willingness to look
reality in the face. There are limits to elasticity, and these
limits are defined in part by our historical connections with the
rest of Europe and in part by the rate of immigrations. High rates
of non-European immigration, even if the immigrants come with the
best of intentions in the world, will swamp us. Not all, I hasten
to add, do come with the best intentions." Buchanan echoes this
theme, "The question we Americans need to address, before it is
answered for us, is: Does this First World nation wish to become a
Third World country? Because that is our destiny if we do not
build a sea wall against the waves of immigration rolling over our
shores....Who speaks for the Euro-Americans, who founded the USA?
Is it not time to take America back?"
Meanwhile, back in what we used to call the racist right, the most
significant trend over the past two years has been a series of
overtures from fascist groups from the racist right, including the
Populist Party, Lyndon LaRouche's organization, and the
Spotlight/Liberty Lobby/Institute for Historical Review network,
to progressive activists calling for a left-right coalition to
challenge the government. Specifically, this projected coalition
is based on three major factors: 1) most importantly, the two
groups are felt to share a critique of government abuses;
distinctions in political orientation among the victims of massive
government repression are felt to be inconsequential in view of
their shared political impotence against the powerful and
voracious state; 2) secondly, both groups naively and
uncritically embrace unsubstantiated conspiracy theories in
preference to a systemic analysis of government abuses and 3)
finally, the alliance is based on a deep strain of anti-Semitism,
which, in the case of the left, is deeply veiled and typically
denied.
The slogan, "Communism is Jewish" is voiced by the far
right, but one suspects it is sometimes silently thought by some
in the New Right and paleo-conservative movements. Political
anti-Semitism has never been very far beneath the surface of the
New Right's anti- communism. The Anti-Semitism of Buchanan is
political as opposed to personal; his rehabilitation of historical
revisionism can thus occur at the same time that he assures us
that some of his best friends are Jewish. Bo Gritz and the
Populist Party are on the right, but the anti- Semitism and racism
are given a respectable cover when some in the U.S. left voice
acceptance of Gritz as a critic of the CIA and government
intelligence abuse. Some sectors of the left in France play a key
role in promoting historical revisionism and this is also
happening among some respectable German historians.
The Populist Party was founded by Willis Carto, who also
founded the Institute for Historical Review, which argues that the
Holocaust was largely a Jewish hoax, Spotlight newspaper, which
praises the fascist British National Front and the Waffen SS, and
Liberty Lobby. The Populist Party ran David Duke for president in
1988 and ran Bo Gritz for president in 1992. A number of former
progressives, government critics, and civil liberties activists
have arrayed themselves with the Populist Party or the Liberty
Lobby network of Willis Carto. The reasons vary, for some it is
shared anti-Semitism (often denied), for others it is a shared
embrace of conspiracy theories. Among these people are Mark Lane,
Dick Gregory, and Fletcher Prouty.
Bo Gritz is an admirer of Christian Identity, a theocratic
nationalist theory which argues that Jews are not human but are
the spawn of Satan, bent on twisting the almost-human blacks to
their evil plans. The Populist party opposes corporate capitalism,
the large corporate and banking interests. They oppose foreign
wars, foreign aid, secrecy in government, covert action and the
CIA. Based on these positions, a number of progressives, including
persons working with the Christic Institute and the Pacifica Radio
network of the west coast, have decided that the populist party is
our friend. Gritz himself has said, "I call upon you as
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, right, left,
conservative, liberal, et. al. to unite as populists until we have
our nation firmly back on her feet." We call this Right Woos Left
at PRA and my colleague Chip Berlet has written a sixty page
report on the phenomenon. We take these overtures by the fascist
right to the progressive right very seriously because we believe
they attempt to recreate a dynamic embraced with disastrous
results by the left in Wiemar Germany.
The appeal of Third Position politics, particularly in the
United States context, is subject to the same critical scrutiny.
Third Position represents the socialist, the national socialist,
wing of fascism and accordingly, some Third Positionists refer to
themselves as Strasserites. Their socialist roots are expressed
primarily in their support for unions and the well-being of the
working class. They are distinguished from other fascists also by
their heated attacks on the modern capitalist state. Third
position groups claim to have evolved an ideology beyond communism
and capitalism. They actively seek to recruit from the left. While
Third Positionists criticize Hitler and his Nazism, they do
support racial nationalism. Thus far the more revolutionary
branches of Third Position political movements, such as the
Strasserites, are poorly studied. These movements are pro-worker,
anti-capitalist, and pro-environment. In the U.S. they are
represented by Tom Metzger's White Aryan Resistance.
In the 1940's, Karl Polanyi argued in The Great
Transformation that a "country approaching the fascist phase"
would be marked by "the spread of irrationalistic philosophies,
racialist esthetics, anticapitalistic demagogy, heterodox currency
views, criticism of the party system, widespread disparagement of
the 'regime' or whatever was the name given to the existing
democratic set-up." While nationalism in Marxist theory has often
been reduced to the self-interested manipulations of international
markets by bourgeois groups, the popular manifestations of
nationalism in Eastern Europe must also be viewed within the
context of the decolonialization of the Soviet empire.
Ultra-nationalist, racist organizations are flourishing these
days, throughout Europe as well as the U.S. In the Ukraine,
student organizations revere the memory of Stepan Bandera, leader
of the anti-Semitic racial nationalist Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists--Bandera. In Hungary, the World War II-era Arrow
Cross has resurfaced and proselytizers for the Iron Guard have
been expelled from Romania. Lithuania is pardoning war criminals
while Latvia is contemplating the adoption of an ethnogenetic
notion of national citizenship: that is, citizenship based on
ethnic background. In France, Chirac has joined LePen in his
xenophobic and racist attacks on immigrants of color. The specific
concern with racial nationalism manifests itself in a number of
very concrete ways around the world. For example, Lithuania
recently engaged in a public debate over whether citizenship in
the newly restored state should be based on ethnicity or place of
birth (only 52 percent of Latvians by birth are ethnically
Latvian). As in most of the countries in which this debate is
taking place, its context is the decolonialization of the Soviet
empire and a history of mutual ethnic bigotry. I consider Nazi
Germany and its puppet Slovakia to be prototypical racial
nationalist states for those who wish to study racial nationalism
in its most naked and brutal forms.
The transition to democracy in Eastern Europe, as it is
called, is being bankrolled by the U.S. agency, the National
Endowment for Democracy. The NED selects agencies to funnel funds
to emerging democratic groups. One of the U.S. groups that it has
selected is the Free Congress Foundation, led by the same Paul
Weyrich who said he was out for Rollback. Paul Weyrich's Free
Congress Foundation has used NED money to train Boris Yeltsin's
staff, and has claimed that Yeltsin's performance during the
August coup was inspired by their training. Yeltsin, long
described as a Russian nationalist, responded in an authoritarian
manner to the attempted coup: he shut down newspapers alleged to
be sympathetic to the coup, claimed authority to appoint the
replacements for all local council members dismissed for
supporting the coup, banned the Communist Party and seized its
property, closed the Russian Writers Union and warned other
republics he would "review" their borders if they attempted
secession from the Soviet Union. Another group trained by the Free
Congress Foundation is the MDF, the Hungarian Democratic Forum,
which has been accused of anti-Semitism a number of times, as when
one of its founders, Istvan Czurka, warned that a "dwarf minority"
was trying to rule Hungary. In response to allegations of
anti-Semitism, MDF party leader and soon to be prime minister
Jozsef Antall said, "There is nothing more harmful to the Jewish
community than debates over anti-Semitism....These people, if
anything is brought against them, because they are Jewish, they
scream anti-Semitism." Free Congress Foundation has also worked
with the Hungarian Independent Smallholders Party, which during
World War II was allied with Nazi Germany. The person at Free
Congress Foundation who recommends Hungarian groups for NED
funding is Laszlo Pasztor, a convicted Nazi collaborator and past
leader in the World War II Hungarian Arrow Cross fascist movement.
In the United States, the political alliances made by Free
Congress Foundation are subject to equally sharp criticism. The
Free Congress Foundation has allied itself in the U.S. with
Christian Reconstructionists, the neo-feudalists of the Society
for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, with members of
such Nazi-allied groups as the Ukrainian Congress Committee of
America and the World Anti Communist League and with racial
eugenicists like Roger Pearson, whose books are published by
Noontide Press, which argues that the Holocaust was largely a
Jewish hoax.
= = =
Research assistance for the first draft of the speech, and final
editing of this published version, was provided by Chip Berlet.
Portions of this version were incorporated into the article
"Traditional Values, Racism, and Christian Theocracy" by Margaret
Quigley and Chip Berlet that appeared in December 1992 issue of
The Public Eye magazine.
Margaret Quigley and Chip Berlet were in the process of co-writing
a larger study titled "Racism, Nationalism, Christian Theocracy,
and Fascism" in 1993 when Quigley and her partner, Susie Chancey
O'Quinn, were killed as their car was struck and demolished by a
drunk driver. Political Research Associates will publish their
study when it is completed by Berlet.
For more information about Political Research Associates, write to
PRA, 678 Mass. Ave, Suite 702, Cambridge, MA 02139.
** End of text from cdp:publiceye **
***************************************************************************
This material came from PeaceNet, a non-profit progressive networking
service. For more information, send a message to peacen...@igc.apc.org
***************************************************************************