Bravo, Mr. Francis, on your VDARE.COM article regarding David Horowitz Phony Immigration Reform conference.

I don't understand why David Horowitz is not more roundly criticized for his carelessness, not only in his analysis of issues, but in his injudicious attacks on persons. Perhaps it is because, as you say, "… to his great credit has written and spoken out courageously against anti-white racism when most on the right were afraid to do so."

His website, Frontpagemag.com, seems to be a quality site, and it's a tribute to him that often his editorial latitude seems to be significant. However, sometimes his attacks against those with whom he ostensibly shares ideological foxholes makes me think he has not yet outgrown his red diapers.

I was recently invited to read an article on the site, so I did a little perusing. What I found there made me physically ill. In response, I posted the following letter to his website:

I started following your work soon after your "conversion" and subsequent rapid emergence as a formidable force in conservative politics. I read Destructive Generation and Radical Son as soon as they were released. Aside from being real page-turners, I felt they truly captured the essence of Leftism's fatal flaw, which might be called "the idolatry of ideas." You also seemed to have a remarkable capacity for self-examination.

However, in the section titled "Neo-Nazi Traitors," though you rightly identify Nazis as leftists, I was astonished to discover two articles to which you linked.

One by Jim Nesbitt of the Newhouse News Service refers to a "fractious network of neo-Nazis, skinheads, Klansmen, Christian patriots, neo-Confederates and white separatists." You have to admit, that's a pretty broad brush – and Nesbitt makes little attempt to distinguish among these radically different groups. He's obviously attempting guilt by association.

In fact, after a few paragraphs, I was beginning to recognize the smell. Then there it was in black and white: the Southern Poverty Law Center. I should have known.

You also linked to a New Republic article by Michelle Cottle titled "White Hope," which also quotes the SPLC.

As The Rockford Institute stated in their released statement on "the Lies of the SPLC":

 [The SPLC] squandered their new-found credibility in their false and defamatory attack on so-called neo-confederate organizations – a varied group that supposedly includes the United Daughters of the Confederacy(a group of polite women who preserve Civil War monuments), the Ludwig von Mises Institute (devoted to free market economics), the League of the South (a Southern advocacy group that repudiates racism), and The Rockford Institute,  a leading voice of American conservative principles that has repeatedly attacked bigotry and racism in every form.

It's apparent the SPLC has a motive – they didn't appreciate a Chronicles article by Samuel Francis, entitled "The Strange Career of Morris Dees" (SPLC founder). Among other things, the article reports that "Dees was one of the first to make capital out of the supposed rash of church burnings: 'Those [black] churches that have been burned in the South were certainly burned by racists.'  In fact, as subsequent investigations by the Associated Press, USA Today, and other mainstream newspapers showed, there was no wave of church arsons at black churches by white racists.  "

Latitude of editorial content is one thing, but these people make Al Sharpton look sincere. You've been falsely tagged with the racist label as much as anyone – isn't the SPLC the exact kind of organization you would normally revile and expose?

What gives?

I received no reply.

And if you want to read a really swell (not!) review of Buchanan's book, The Death of the West, read the Jamie Glazov bilge on FrontPage. The Glazov review triggered a flood of mail to the site, as well as a Glazov follow-up response to the mail.

But to Horowitz's credit, a quite favorable review by John Zmirak appears as well. (More evidence of Horowitz' good taste is that he uses VDARE.com's own Alan Wall.)

You wrote that "Americans today are frightened and angry – and rightly so – over the mass bloodshed that uncontrolled immigration has already helped spill in New York and Washington and at what it might cause in the future." [Emphasis added.]

No need for uncertainty: I heard Mr. Rumsfeld on the radio recently reassuring America that not only are future terrorist attacks a certainty, but that they will be far more catastrophic.

Since it seems evident that Horowitz and friends care little for America aside from its existence as a corporation-state, I can understand their snickering at the "racists" who engage in sincere immigration control discourse.

But as they scoff while they watch the fall of a great nation, I hope no one they love is harmed by the terror-state they have helped to create.

February 6, 2002