Heidi Beirich

How Amazon, PayPal and eBay are Financing Hate

This article originally appeared in Southern Poverty Law Center's Spring 2014 Intelligence Report, and is reprinted here with their permission.

Keep reading... Show less

3rd Reich Tourism for NeoNazis on the Rise

When Americans plan their vacations to foreign lands, they may think of some tropical paradise like Fiji. Or how about taking in some European castles? Perhaps a look at the splendors of China’s Forbidden City? But there are other options if you want to go international. In particular, what about a 10-day tour of southern Germany that hits all of Adolf Hitler’s favorite spots, like the famous Eagle’s Nest built by the führer’s private secretary, Martin Bormann, for his 50th birthday?If a pro-Hitler itinerary like that is to your liking, then a Sharkhunters International tour is for you. The Hernando, Fla.-based outfit, which you can join for a fee in return for certain benefits, fetishizes the Nazis and U-boat history, taking its travelers to the hidden gems of the Third Reich.

Keep reading... Show less

Losing the War to Criminalize Gay Sex in the US, Religious-Right Groups Are Taking Their Fight Abroad

BELIZE CITY, Belize—The air in the tropical lowlands of Belize is alive with wild parrot squawks and the briny scent of the country’s aqua Caribbean waters. Known to most Americans only as a humid cruise ship stopover, Belize is most often visited for its stunning coral reefs. But what tourists likely don’t know is that this tiny country has become Ground Zero in the latest international battle over the criminalization of LGBT sexual relationships.

For three years, a ferocious legal battle has been waged in this nation of some 356,00 people over a criminal statute that can land men and women in prison for engaging in private acts between consenting adults of the same sex. What’s more, the fight over the constitutionality of Section 53 of Belize’s criminal code, which prescribes a 10-year sentence for “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any person or animal,” has been joined by hard-line U.S. religious-right groups seeking to keep gay sex illegal in as many countries as possible.

Keep reading... Show less

How Racist Anti-Immigrant Groups Are Trying to Recruit Environmentalists

In January 2010, national leaders in ecology, sustainable business, and the larger environmental movement gathered in Washington to grapple with the problem of building "The New Green Economy." Hosted by the government-funded National Council for Science and the Environment, the event was a prestigious one.

Keep reading... Show less

Why Is Lou Dobbs Minimizing the Impact of Hate Crimes?

CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" recently aired a segment criticizing the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) for holding a news conference earlier in the day calling attention to the link between anti-immigrant rhetoric and hate crimes against Latinos. The groups were reacting to the recent murder of Marcello Lucero, an Ecuadorian immigrant, who was fatally attacked in early November by seven high school students in Suffolk County, New York.

Keep reading... Show less

Vermont Secessionists Meet with Racist League of the South

From 1777 until 1791, Vermont was an independent state complete with all the trappings -- a constitution, a flag, even a mint to pump out its own money, the Vermont copper. But in 1791, Vermonters happily joined the new United States. Now, some of the locals want out.

In 2003, the Second Vermont Republic (SVR) sprang up to push for the independence of Vermont, a tiny, idyllic Northeastern state with fewer than 630,000 residents. In its seemingly quixotic quest, SVR took up the mantra that small is beautiful, arguing that secession would lead to sustainability, ecological balance, an end to military entanglements overseas, and a better life. SVR activists designed a new green flag for Vermont and started selling T-shirts, particularly popular with the state's many tourists, that read, "U.S. OUT OF VT!"

But in recent months and years, SVR's actions have gone from way out to worrying. Starting in 2005, SVR leader Thomas H. Naylor -- along with SVR's very close ally, the Cold Spring, N.Y.-based Middlebury Institute that is headed by longtime leftist Kirkpatrick Sale -- began openly collaborating with a collection of Southern extremists to build a national secession movement.

SVR's disturbing new partner is the white supremacist League of the South. The Alabama-based group is against interracial marriage, believes the old Confederacy never surrendered, and wants to reestablish "the cultural dominance of the Anglo-Celtic people and their institutions" in a newly seceded South. It seeks to accord different classes of people differing legal rights in what sounds very much like a medieval theocracy of lords, serfs and clerics. League intellectuals have defended both slavery (which was "God-ordained") and segregation, a policy described as protecting the genetic "integrity" of both blacks and whites. Right after Hurricane Katrina, league members put up "whites only" housing offers, including one from Alabama offering a trailer to a "white family of three or four," and another from Tennessee offering to temporarily house a "White Christian family."

Many Vermonters have been shocked by this alliance. After all, the Green Mountain State was the first to abolish slavery in 1777, and its men fought fiercely to preserve the union in battles during the Civil War, some of which are proudly commemorated in paintings displayed inside the gold-domed State House. But Naylor isn't worried about his fellow Vermonters' concerns, hotly defending as critical his newfound alliance with members of the radical right.

"For the last 30 years, people have been speculating on the idea of far left meets far right, and I saw the possibility for that not to be fantasy but to be real," Naylor told the Intelligence Report. "The objective is to bring down the Empire." The League of the South, Naylor added, though "not perfect," is "not racist."

Birthing a movement

Talk of secession has been heating up in Vermont since the early 1990s and even before. In 1991, then-Lt. Gov. Howard Dean moderated debates in seven towns that then voted for secession. That same year, University of Vermont professor and current SVR advisor Frank Bryan argued for secession in a series of well-publicized debates with Vermont Supreme Court Justice John Dooley. With the election of George Bush and the onset of the increasingly unpopular Iraq war, secessionist sentiment in traditionally liberal Vermont picked up, with a 2006 University of Vermont poll showing 8% of residents interested in the idea.

It was Naylor who turned that sentiment into a movement, founding SVR after self-publishing The Vermont Manifesto in 2003. Naylor was spurred to create SVR by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which he does not believe were organized by Osama bin Laden, a "fundamentalist living in a remote cave," but rather were the ultimate result of American arrogance. In his manifesto's preface, Naylor writes: "Our nation has truly lost its way. America is no longer a sustainable nation-state economically, politically, socially, militarily or environmentally. The Empire has no clothes." A perennial curmudgeon, Naylor regularly berates government officials. He calls Vermont's elected officials "enemies of the state" and has labeled six-term Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, "a world-class prostitute."

To most Vermonters, SVR was originally seen as a far-out outfit that engaged in publicity stunts to push secession. At least in the beginning, its most enthusiastic supporters seemed to be the Glover, Vt.-based Bread and Puppet Theater troupe, a merry band dedicated to "cheap art" whose building hosted SVR's first statewide meeting in October 2003. One SVR attention-grabber was a "memorial service" held on March 4, 2005, commemorating the day in 1791 that Vermont joined the union. The service included everything from a reading from Ecclesiastes to the strains of Chopin's "Funeral March." A funeral procession with a New Orleans-style jazz band carried a flag-draped coffin containing the "deceased First Vermont Republic" to the State House in Montpelier, where it was placed at the feet of Vermont Revolutionary War hero Ethan Allen's statue. SVR even achieved a symbolic political success, persuading the legislature to designate Jan. 16 as Vermont Independence Day to commemorate the establishment of the First Vermont Republic in 1777.

Naylor's leftist credentials were enhanced greatly by his close friendship with Kirkpatrick Sale, whose Middlebury Institute he helped found in 2005. Sale, a contributing editor at the left-wing journal The Nation and a chronicler of the militant, 1960s-era Students for a Democratic Society, is best known as the author of The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy, a 1991 history that was the first to denounce Columbus for "founding" the New World and ushering in the destruction of its native peoples. Between 1965 and 1968, he was editor of The New York Times Magazine. Thirty years later, in 1995, Sale was named as a "visionary" by the Utne Reader, a liberal journal. Sale also is known for his hatred of technology, once famously smashing a computer to bits on a New York stage.

In 2005, the Vermont secessionist movement also spawned a popular independent newspaper, Vermont Commons, that the SVR describes as a "sister organization." The newspaper promotes nonviolent secession and a "more sustainable Vermont future." Both SVR and Vermont Commons argue that the United States has become an unsustainable "empire" in need of dismantling.

From Mississippi to Montpelier

The image of SVR as a quixotic band of idealistic Vermontophiles fighting for an independent Green Mountain State has taken a public beating since 2006, when Naylor and Sale began openly working with the League of the South and other neo-Confederates. But the fact is that from the beginning, the SVR has been in many ways a Southern import that pushes 19th-century claims about states' rights and a revisionist take on Lincoln and the Civil War.

Naylor, the SVR's 71-year-old founder, is a born-and-bred child of the Deep South. He apparently developed his secessionist ideas under the guidance of former League of the South member and Emory University philosopher Donald Livingston -- a man Naylor told the Intelligence Report is the "philosophical guru of the Second Vermont Republic" and who is also published in Vermont Commons. Livingston -- who told the Report in a 2001 interview that "the North created segregation" and that Southerners fought during the Civil War only "because they were invaded" -- has attended most of SVR's events. Livingston is also featured in the SVR video, "U.S. Empire and Vermont Independence," alongside SVR stalwarts Frank Bryan and Jim Hogue, who is an Ethan Allen reenactor.

Naylor is a native of Jackson, Miss. Some of his father T. H. Naylor Jr.'s correspondence is found in the archives of the infamous Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, a secret state spy agency that was formed to battle integration. The elder Naylor was even featured in the notorious film, "Message From Mississippi," which promoted the joys of segregation. Now retired, Naylor taught economics at Duke University in Durham, N.C., for 30 years, and has written 30 books, ranging from tomes on computer simulations to political works on Gorbachev. In the early 1990s, he worked as a consultant for companies in the USSR. During that time, he became convinced that the break-up of the Soviet Union was a harbinger of America's future.

Although the younger Naylor told the Intelligence Report that while in college he refused to stand when "Dixie" was played at the University of Mississippi's football games, his ideology is now rife with neo-Confederate ideas. By 1997, Naylor, in his book Downsizing the U.S.A. -- co-authored by William Willimon, the dean of chapel and a professor of Christian ministry at Duke University in North Carolina -- was calling the Civil War the "War Between the States." Parroting the neo-Confederate anti-Lincoln line, Naylor calls Lincoln "arguably the worst" president in American history. "Lincoln invaded the Confederate States without the consent of congress," he wrote in his Manifesto, adding that Lincoln "may have also been the father of American internal imperialism."

And he adopted a revisionist view of the causes of the Civil War that has been roundly rejected by most serious historians. "Most Americans think the Civil War was fought about freeing the slaves, but rather it was fought to preserve the union and build an empire," Naylor told The (U.K) Independent last October.

Naylor also is down on desegregation. In a 2007 essay, "Minority States NOT Minority Rights," Naylor criticizes segregation but also "forced racial integration," complaining that the federal government was in the 1950s and 1960s "ordering me to associate with minorities whether I like it or not." Overall, Naylor can't abide by the idea that since civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s, "minority rights always trump states' rights." He asks if integration "disempowered minorities, diluting their influence over their communities and implying that every solution to their problems always lies in the hands of the majority-backed government?"

New Friends

Naylor's reasons for moving to Vermont are explained in Downsizing the U.S.A. He portrays his then-hometown of Richmond, Va., as overcome by crime and angry African Americans, saying it was in a "death spiral." When he moved to Vermont in 1993, Naylor almost immediately started calling for an independent state. He pines for a separate Vermont, perhaps allied with other Atlantic maritime entities, that would resemble Switzerland or Luxembourg -- countries Naylor considers as close to perfect as possible. In Downsizing the U.S.A., Naylor sounds a theme similar to that of many white supremacists, suggesting that some parts of the country could be broken up according to ethnicity. "If Palestine could be divided into a Jewish state and an Arab state, why can't independent African American, Hispanic, and Native American states be carved out of the United States?"

In Vermont, Naylor grew close to an unlikely secessionist, the renowned diplomat George Kennan, described by Naylor as "the godfather of the movement." In his 1994 autobiography Around the Cragged Hill, Kennan had suggested breaking the U.S. into "a dozen constituent republics" for reasons that don't sound that different than Naylor's. In a letter to Naylor quoted in The American Conservative, Kennan wrote of "unmistakable evidences of a growing differentiation between the cultures, respectively, of large southern and southwestern regions of this country" and worried that "the very culture of the bulk of the population of these regions will tend to be primarily Latin-American in nature." Kennan questioned whether American society should be "recklessly trashed" for what he called "a polyglot mix-mash."

Though he has spent his entire life in the New York region and been a regular on the progressive intellectual scene in New York City, Kirkpatrick Sale, too, has sounded very Confederate of late. When addressing the League of the South's convention last fall in Chattanooga, Tenn., Sale came off like a newly minted neo-Confederate. Describing himself as a "Northerner but with the blood of the South running through my veins," Sale told the cheering audience that he was descended from the Sale clan of Virginia and Kentucky and that one of his ancestors, Charles "Chic" Sale, wrote a popular story in Southern vernacular on building outhouses called The Specialist. At the end of the league conference, the audience stood and sang "Dixie" together. In a more recent essay, Sale described his view of what happened when the South seceded the first time: "They were ruthlessly attacked and their society eventually destroyed."

Early last October, Sale's institute co-hosted with the league the Second Annual North American Secession Conference in the same Chattanooga venue. With about 60 attendees, most of the conference's speakers were members of the league or prominent neo-Confederate activists. The event also attracted interest in white supremacist circles outside of the South. For example, publisher Bill Regnery, backer of the white supremacist National Policy Institute, which issues reports on such things as "The State of White America" and "Conservatives and Race," was on hand. For a movement supposedly led out of Vermont and New York, Southerners seem now to be at least co-driving the bus.

Left meets right

Four years earlier, in November 2004, SVR held its first serious conference in Middlebury, Vt., in conjunction with Fourth World, a left-wing British secessionist group supported by Sale. That was the beginning of the close partnership between Sale and Naylor.

Attended by 35 people, the conference produced "The Middlebury Declaration," named for the place where it was signed, the Middlebury Inn. The original signers were Naylor, Sale and Donald Livingston, the former league leader. The declaration asserts that "[t]he American empire, now imposing its military might on 153 countries around the world, is as fragile as empires historically tend to be, and that it might well implode upon itself in the near future." Hence the need for a "new politics" based on separation.

Secessionists with League of the South connections were soon involved. Naylor said they approached SVR "as a role model."

Speaking at a Vermont Independence rally that same year was John Remington Graham, an expert on the Francophone independence movement in Quebec, Canada, and an affiliated scholar at the League of the South's Institute for the Study of Southern Culture and History. The main outcome of the meeting was a decision to create a think tank to explore secession around the world. That idea came to fruition with the establishment of Sale's Middlebury Institute in 2005 as a sort of secessionist gathering point that posts material on its website about secessionist groups around the world. The institute also holds conferences on secession, two of which have prominently featured league members as well as other neo-Confederates.

In November 2006, SVR and the Middlebury Institute co-hosted the First North American Separatist Convention in the Montpelier State House (which, ironically, is graced by a large statue of Lincoln). The secessionists-only conference brought together several groups, including the Free Hawaii movement and members of the Alaskan Independence Party. But the bulk of the crowd even then was made up of Southern groups including the racist League of the South; Christian Exodus, a theocracy-minded outfit headed by a former league leader from Texas; and the Abbeville Institute, which was established by Donald Livingston in 2003 after he finally left the League of the South due to its "political baggage." Livingston's institute is devoted to the "Southern tradition," including what it describes as the ignored "achievements of white people in the South."

In October 2007, the league, Naylor and Sale met again in Chattanooga for the Second Annual North American Secession conference, an event organized by the Middlebury Institute and this time officially co-hosted by the league. The conference issued the "Chattanooga Declaration" -- a document that pronounced the "old left-right split meaningless and dead" and called for "diversity among human societies." It was while in Chattanooga that Sale spoke so fondly of his Southern roots.

Sale defended the league to reporters, telling The (U.K.) Independent that fall that he wanted to show the "folks up north" that league members are "legitimate colleagues" who have been wrongly declared "racists." (Sale declined to discuss the league, its history or anything else with the Report, saying by E-mail that he did not trust it "for one instant to be fair or truthful.") Sale has hotly contested the SPLC designation of the league as a hate group, telling The Associated Press in 2007 that the league -- whose leader, former university professor Michael Hill, has engaged in such activities as sending out E-mails mocking the names of his African-American students -- "has not done or said anything racist in its 14 years of existence."

Hard to Starboard

Naylor and Sale don't just share secessionist chitchat with their new neo-Confederate friends. Over the last two years, they have both become ensconced in the neo-Confederate movement and collegial with several extremists. For example, Naylor serves as an "associated scholar" at Livingston's Abbeville Institute, whose ranks are filled with current and former league members. Another Abbeville "scholar," Scott Trask, has written for the white supremacist newsletter American Renaissance, which is devoted to proving the intellectual inferiority of minorities and recently claimed that blacks are incapable of creating any civilization.

SVR, the Abbeville Institute and the League of the South Institute for the Study of Southern Culture and History all share as an advisor Thomas DiLorenzo, a professor at Loyola College who has done more than anyone to push the idea that Abraham Lincoln was a paragon of wickedness, a man secretly intent on destroying states' rights and building a massive federal government. "It was not to end slavery that Lincoln initiated an invasion of the South," DiLorenzo writes in his 2002 attack on Lincoln, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. "A war was not necessary to free the slaves, but it was necessary to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession."

Appointed to the SVR advisory board in 2005, Marco Bassani, an Italian college professor, is also an associated scholar at the Abbeville Institute. More importantly, he is a member of the xenophobic and anti-immigrant Northern League, whose leader, Umberto Bossi, has described African immigrants as "bingo-bongos" and suggested opening fire on the boats of would-be illegal immigrants to Italy.

Besides speaking at league conferences, Sale's speeches are for sale at Georgia League of the South leader Ray McBerry's Dixie Broadcasting, where Sale is described as a "social liberal who supports the Constitutional concept of the right of secession." The league advertises on its website that it will participate in the Third Annual North American Secessionist Convention, to be put on by Sale's Middlebury Institute next fall.

In the last two years, Sale and Naylor even signed on as guests for the now-defunct Tennessee-based hate radio program "The Political Cesspool," run by white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens board member and David Duke pal James Edwards. Naylor, who has been a guest twice on the program whose guest line-up reads like a Who's Who of the racist radical right, appeared during its celebration of "Confederate History Month" in April 2007.

In the case of Israel, Sale has views that are common to the far left and the far right. In a 2003 article for the left-wing journal Counterpunch called "An End to the Israel Experiment? Unmaking a Grievous Error," Sale asks "[w]hether the 50-year-old experiment known as the state of Israel has proven to be a failure and should be abandoned." He points out that "[t]he [Jewish] diaspora, after all, has existed since 70 A.D., far longer than the state has, and might even be thought of as the natural or historic role of Jewry."

Naylor sees it similarly. "We have a government that is unconditionally allied with the state of Israel, which is an apartheid terrorist state," he told the Report. He complained that the entire congressional delegation of Vermont "supports Israel."

'Hating America'

Some Vermonters continue to stand by Naylor despite concerns. Vermont Commons Editor Rob Williams told the Intelligence Report that although his organization is completely separate from SVR, Naylor is "no racist" and a man whom he considers "a colleague" and whose essays his paper will continue to publish. A member of SVR's speakers bureau, Williams added: "The 'racism' charge, by the way, has become a convenient way for a few outspoken Vermonters who may not agree with our goals to throw stones at us."

The real racist, Williams said, is "the United States empire."

But playing footsie with neo-Confederates has cost SVR, as several members have left the group or distanced themselves from it in recent years. Former executive director Jane Dwinel quit the group in 2006, telling the Report later that she had had sharp disagreements with Naylor. John McClaughry, a supporter of decentralization, told the Report that SVR has "shaded over to hating America." According to the Vermont Secession blog, Dan Dewalt, a former SVR advisory member, was dismissed from the group for merely raising irksome questions about Naylor's connection to groups including the league.

Even many of those who remain Naylor's colleagues are worried by SVR's new Southern friends. "You've got to watch whose conference you go to. There's no doubt about it," SVR advisor Frank Bryan told the Report. Added longtime SVR ally Jim Hogue, "If [Naylor] was very flattering toward the League of the South, and they're racist, that was probably a bad idea."

In the face of these criticisms, Naylor remains defiant. "I don't give a shit what you write," he told the Intelligence Report. "If someone tells me that I shouldn't associate with the League of the South, it guarantees that I will associate with the League of the South."

Sale seems to be losing friends, too. Roane Carey, an editor who has worked with Sale at The Nation, told the Intelligence Report: "The Nation has no sympathy for or connection to the League of the South or any group of that ilk. A couple of years ago, we found out that the Vermont secession movement had the astonishingly poor judgment to make an alliance with the [League of the South], whose thinly disguised racism and closed-mindedness we condemn without reservation.

"It's one thing to call for devolution, local self-rule, small-is-beautiful politics -- even, in some circumstances, the idea of secession -- in the cause of ending empire and enhancing democracy, personal liberty, equal rights and environmental sanity," said Carey. "It's quite another to make nice with groups, such as the League of the South, that use the language of secession and regional or local self-rule as a means of promoting Old South revanchism."

Carey added that he hopes Sale "comes to his senses."

Despite SVR's best efforts, for now the union appears to be safe -- Vermont secessionists failed to obtain the signatures needed to put independence resolutions on 2008 Town Meeting Day ballots. They will try again in 2009.

California Professor Is Font of Anti-Semitism

LONG BEACH, Calif. -- California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), is a multicultural wonderland, with classrooms filled by Golden Staters whose ancestors came to this lively, diverse beach community from every corner of the world. Double-stocked with both an Office of Equity and Diversity and a Multicultural Center, CSULB openly proclaims its commitment to educating all of California’s students, regardless of income, race, creed or national origin.

Given its diverse student body, it would seem that CSULB would be the last place to find a tried and true anti-Semite and white supremacist lecturing. But that is where Kevin B. MacDonald, a 63-year-old man who developed a deep-seated mistrust for Jewish activists while protesting the Vietnam War, is employed as the psychology professor for those seeking degrees in child development.

From an office inside the bunker-like, six-story Psych building, a tall, thin, bespectacled MacDonald pumps out pages and pages of material on how Jews are genetically driven to destroy Western societies. According to MacDonald, who considers himself an evolutionary psychologist, Jews, who have typically been in the minority in countries around the world, are compelled by an evolutionary strategy that makes them push for liberal policies, like immigration and diversity, with the intent of weakening the power of the majority that rules them.

Ultimately, MacDonald blames the death of millions on "the failure of Jewish assimilation into European societies" and even suggests that "parity" between Jews and gentiles could be reestablished by discriminating against Jews in college admissions and establishing taxes to reduce "the Jewish advantage" in wealth.

MacDonald’s three-volume set of books on Jews and their destructive tactics is devoured by anti-Semites the world over. Not since Hitler’s Mein Kampf have anti-Semites had such a comprehensive reference guide to what’s wrong with "the Jews." His work is widely advertised and touted on white supremacist websites and sold by neo-Nazi outfits like National Vanguard Books, which considers them "the most important books of the last 100 years." For years, MacDonald defended his research as apolitical and scientific, but that defense fell apart after the millennium, when MacDonald embarked on a white supremacist speaking tour. Last December, MacDonald dropped the defense altogether and declared his dislike for Jews.

"I have come to the point of seeing my subjects in a less than flattering light," the professor wrote on his kevinmacdonald.net website.

CSULB is not the first campus to employ an academic racist on its professorial staff. But what makes MacDonald’s case unique is that he was able to reach the heights of his profession, securing a post on the executive council of the professional body for evolutionary psychologists, all the while producing "research" now widely viewed as anti-Semitic. His work on Jewish evolutionary psychology made it into peer-reviewed publications and was taken seriously by many Ph.D.s. At CSULB, MacDonald sailed through his post-tenure review and was awarded sabbaticals and choice committee assignments (he currently serves on the Scholarly and Creative Activities Committee).

MacDonald filled his university website with racist and anti-Semitic materials, using some of them in his classes. Even when his connections to a prominent Holocaust denier were made public in 2000, the reaction from his department and the university’s administration was silence. By last year, MacDonald had been awarded $10,000 by one racist outfit for his anti-Semitic research and was appointed as an adviser to another. Through it all, MacDonald did not suffer one official word of censure until late 2006, when general resolutions from his department opposing the use of academic research by hate groups and applauding diversity were enacted (these resolutions were prompted by inquiries from a writer for the Intelligence Report). Instead, he was given rewards.

MacDonald refused repeated requests from the Report for comment over the course of several months, writing on his personal website that he had "no confidence" that he would be treated in a "non-biased way."

A Bohemian discovers the Jews

A former flower child and anti-Vietnam War activist, MacDonald was born in Oshkosh, Wis., to a middle-class family with a police officer dad. Raised in Joseph McCarthy’s home state in the midst of that senator’s anti-communist witch-hunts, MacDonald attended Catholic schools and played basketball. He enrolled at the University of Wisconsin in the early 1960s, majoring in philosophy. An ardent peacenik in college, MacDonald abandoned Catholicism and joined the anti-war movement. It was during these years that MacDonald would later admit he began to have suspicions about the motives of his Jewish fellow protesters. After school, MacDonald pursued the bohemian lifestyle of a jazz pianist, a career that ultimately failed. Not long after the fall of Saigon in 1975, he returned to the university campus.

MacDonald headed to graduate school at the University of Connecticut, earning a master’s in biology in 1977, at the age of 33. In 1981, he earned a Ph.D. in biobehavioral sciences from the same university. While in Connecticut, MacDonald studied the behavior of wolves, particularly wolf-cub interaction. He then spent two years as a post-doctoral fellow in the University of Illinois’ psychology department, where he received his first serious introduction to the discipline of psychology, which would be his life’s work. While there, MacDonald’s interest shifted from wolves to humans, as he studied parent-child play.

MacDonald was hired as an assistant professor by CSULB in 1985, when he was 41 years old, and has been there ever since. MacDonald’s research in the 1980s and early 1990s was in line with this early training. His first academic publication was "Activity Patterns in a Captive Wolf Pack," and he was still writing about wolves in the late 1980s. MacDonald published dozens of articles and a couple of books on parent-child behavior in the late 1980s and 1990s.

MacDonald's academic career was sailing nicely along, and he was awarded a CSULB Distinguished Faculty Scholarly and Creative Activities Award in 1995. But MacDonald's anti-war experiences haunted him, and he later told New Times LA journalist Tony Ortega that he had come to realize that that was when his fixation on Jews developed. Noticing many of fellow activists were Jewish, MacDonald developed his first inkling that Jews are compelled to challenge traditional American and Western ideals. He came to the conclusion that Jews take over political and cultural movements and front them with unsuspecting, token gentiles -- just the way MacDonald felt he was treated while protesting the Vietnam War.

In the 1980s, MacDonald started reading up on Jews, trying to determine the reasons behind what he saw as their lockstep liberalism and hatred of all things Western. His first effort, the first book in his trilogy on the Jews, was the 1994 publication of A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, which was published by Praeger Press and came out just after MacDonald was awarded his full professorship. Today, most of MacDonald's publishing is about Jews and the evils of the liberal immigration policies they support.


Landing at Long Beach

MacDonald was lucky he landed at Long Beach. The department where MacDonald found a permanent home turned out to be a good place for someone interested in publishing things they might not want others to notice. Long troubled by internecine political battles, in 1994 CSULB's psychology department was criticized by an external reviewer for being "devoid of open discussion of tough issues."

Professors in that department, most of them only willing to speak on background because of fear of retribution from their colleagues, said that the environment hasn't changed much. The department hasn't held faculty meetings in more than a decade, they say, and decisions, including those concerning academic tenure, are made by a small committee of full professors. "There's always a lot of surprise among younger faculty that you don't interact with your colleagues," one assistant professor told theReport. "We are all independent contractors, we have no department meetings, no social gatherings, and we don't even know a lot of the senior faculty, let alone something about their research."

Professor Michael Connor seconded those comments, telling the Report that it made sense someone like MacDonald had prospered in his department. "It's not surprising that this happened here," said Connor, the first black professor hired in the department, in the early 1970s. Connor pointed out that most of his senior colleagues were well aware of MacDonald's views and that MacDonald, in line with his dislike of minority rights, had been very outspoken over the years against ethnic studies programs and diversity efforts. Saying that he would not have taught all these years at CSULB if it weren't for his love of his students and the Black Psychology Students Association he advises, Connor labeled the department "a hostile work environment" where he had "experienced any number of racist incidents."

MacDonald faced no such challenges. In 1994, in fact, he was promoted to full professor.

Professor Sara Smith, who served on the committee that promoted MacDonald to full professor, wrote by E-mail she was "wary but supportive in principle" of his first two works on Jews. Describing MacDonald as a "personable colleague," she wrote that the department had typically been supportive of "new approaches to teaching and scholarship" and that she thought at that point that MacDonald seemed to have "not quite crossed any professional or ethical danger line, though we realized his work was susceptible to some scary interpretations." She also noted that she had heard from students that "Kevin presented a view of race and intelligence that they found troubling," but did little about it. She now regrets her earlier support.

"My views today are very different," she explained.

Teaching the young

The psychology chair, Ken Green, disagreed that his department had any hand in promoting MacDonald's extremism. In an interview, Green defended MacDonald against earlier Intelligence Report articles that reported MacDonald's anti-Semitic views and white supremacist activities, asking if the Report would now issue an update notifying readers that MacDonald had resigned in October as an advisor to the white supremacist National Policy Institute. (MacDonald quit only after learning that the Report was working on this article last year).

When pressed about whether MacDonald's anti-Semitic and racist views had ever leaked into the classroom and affected student grades or learning, Green said, "He keeps his outside stuff outside and he keeps his classroom activity consistent with what it ought to be." Asked how he would know that, given that classroom visits are not allowed in the department, Green said: "The ways of knowing are to check the materials he has on his website, to ask the mediator and anybody else who might be receiving student complaints, including me."

Whether or not administrators know about it, the fact is that MacDonald does use the work of notorious race scientists -- including that of J. Philippe Rushton, a Canadian academic who argues that penis and brain size (and thus intelligence) are inversely related -- as course material. (Rushton argues that blacks, on average, have larger genitalia and smaller brains than whites.)

At least one student agrees with Green's view of MacDonald's teaching. Farnaz Kaighobadi, a psychology student for whom MacDonald has written a letter of recommendation for graduate school, called the Report to insist that MacDonald kept his views on Jews and non-whites out of the classroom. But students posting comments anonymously at rateyourprofessors.com say that they have seen bias in MacDonald's teaching. One student writes that MacDonald "promotes race-based theories of intelligence and will not consider alternate theories." Another comments that MacDonald has views "regarding the ‘genetic superiority' of Whites over Blacks."

In 2000, MacDonald opened up his classroom to Tony Ortega, the New Times LA reporter. The topic of the day was IQ, which MacDonald told the class "is probably the most important human difference that we deal with." Arguing that day that a child's IQ can't be raised and that low IQ inevitably brought with it lower income, more children, and more illegitimacy, MacDonald relied on data from the controversial and heavily criticized book The Bell Curve. He commented to the class, "The dull ones are more fertile – what does this mean for our future?"

A friendly warning

The lack of discussion noted by younger psychology professors at CSULB ensured that only a few of MacDonald's colleagues realized that a racist activist was developing in their midst. Professors who knew of complaints about MacDonald's work, like Sara Smith, did little, and MacDonald continued about his business.

But not all were clueless. As long ago as 1993, after reviewing one of MacDonald's manuscripts, psychology professor Martin Fiebert, who then frequently played tennis with MacDonald, warned his then-friend: "Your manuscript, unintentionally perhaps, reinforces the stereotype that all Jews … are clannish, deceptive, and exploitative." Fiebert wrote to MacDonald that he was "horrified" by his description of Hitler's writings as "entirely straightforward and making excellent sense from an evolutionary perspective." Fiebert gave MacDonald what turned out to be a prophetic warning: "I'm sure you would be dismayed to find that your book has a treasured place in the bookcases of neo-Nazis along with Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

It wasn't just CSULB's senior psychology staff that gave MacDonald and his increasingly controversial research a pass. In 1995, MacDonald reached the heights of his profession, winning election to a six-year term as Secretary-Archivist and member of the Executive Council of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, the main professional association for evolutionary psychologists. He went on to publish several articles explaining his views of why Jews act as they do in a series of professional publications, including Research in Biopolitics, European Sociobiological Society Newsletter and Population and Environment, for which he would also serve as editor from 1999 through 2004.

For Emory University Professor of Jewish Studies Deborah Lipstadt, who MacDonald eventually testified against in a libel case brought by Holocaust denier David Irving, that is scandalous. Lipstadt wrote in her book History on Trial: "I found it hard to fathom that this man had been teaching at an American university for over fifteen years and had published what could arguably be described as anti-Semitic tomes without anyone -- his colleagues in particular -- taking notice… . [N]ot only had his colleagues not taken notice, his fellow evolutionary psychologists elected him secretary of the association of evolutionary psychologists."


Crossing the Rubicon

Fiebert's friendly warning to MacDonald fell on deaf ears. Instead, during the 1990s, MacDonald dedicated himself to his anti-Semitic intellectual odyssey. He produced three volumes on the Jews, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994), Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998), and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998). The trilogy provides a whole new justification for anti-Semitism that has nothing to do with Nazi race theories, which blamed Jews for introducing evil social vices and other perversions into Nordic society and portrayed them as degenerates praying on unsuspecting, wholesome Aryans. Instead of depending on Hitler, MacDonald has provided today's neo-Nazis with a whole new set of reasons for why Jewish behavior and culture are a threat to whites.

MacDonald's basic premise is that Jews engage in a "group evolutionary strategy" that serves to enhance their ability to out-compete non-Jews for resources. Although normally a tiny minority in their host countries, Jews, like viruses, destabilize their host societies to their benefit. Just last April, MacDonald explained on the anti-immigrant hate site vdare.com how Jews have sapped the power of the American white majority. "Despite the fact that Jews constitute less than 3 percent of the US population, the Holocaust has become a cultural icon as a direct result of Jewish activism and influence in the media, Israel has become a sacred cow in American politics, and the role of Jewish organizations in helping unleash massive multiethnic immigration into the U.S., as well as engineering the current American involvement in Iraq, goes unmentioned in public debate," MacDonald said.

MacDonald argues that this alleged Jewish evolutionary strategy is particularly sinister because, he says, it paints its opponents, meaning whites, as insane if they reject Jewish ideas. "Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental [Jewish] agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology," MacDonald has written.

In perhaps MacDonald's most controversial chapter of the trilogy -- "National Socialism as an Anti-Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy" in Separation and its Discontents -- the psychology professor argues that the Nazi movement developed specifically to counter "Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy." The upshot of his contention is that Jewish "group behavior," because it has produced much financial and intellectual success over the years, also has produced understandable hatred for Jews by gentiles. That means that anti-Semitism, rather than being an irrational hatred for Jews, is actually a logical reaction to Jewish success. In other words, the Nazis, like many other anti-Semites, were only anti-Semitic because they were countering a genuine Jewish threat to their well-being.

And the Jews' machinations don't merely destroy societies; they result in widespread death, according to MacDonald. In The Culture of Critique, he blames Jews for having caused the deaths of millions by supporting such ideologies as Marxism. "In the 20th century many millions of people have been killed in the attempt to establish Marxist societies based on the ideal of complete economic and social leveling, and many more millions of people have been killed as a result of the failure of Jewish assimilation into European societies… . [T]he result has been a widening gulf between the cultural successes of Jews and Gentiles and a disaster for society as a whole." MacDonald ends his book with some rather harsh possible policy outcomes for restoring what he calls "parity" between Jews and other ethnic groups: systematic discrimination against Jews in college admissions and employment and special taxes "to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth."

Sussing out the race war

In the late 1990s, MacDonald started flirting with white supremacists, adding racism to his anti-Semitic dance card. According to his resumé, MacDonald's first foray into the world of the radical right came in 1996, when he spoke on "Eugenics and Judaism" at a conference to defend The Bell Curve organized by British academic racist Richard Lynn. The Bell Curve, which argued that blacks are genetically inferior in intellect to whites, had been heavily critiqued for relying on Lynn's intelligence data, which are viewed in the scientific community as flawed. Lynn, who directs a private race-science organization called the Ulster Institute for Social Research, specializes in research on IQ and race that has been funded primarily by the Pioneer Fund, on whose board he sits. The fund was originally set up to investigate "race betterment," and today its resources still make possible the "research" of prominent academic racists.

Two years later, in 1998, MacDonald hooked up with another prominent racist when he participated on a panel during the meetings of the Association of Politics and the Life Sciences. The panel was organized by Virginia Abernethy, a self-described "white separatist" and professor emerita at Vanderbilt University who has been active for a decade in the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). (Abernethy gave a speech to the CCC in 1997 as the editor of Population and Environment, an academic journal. The CCC's website has described blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity," among other things.) The two would later work closely together at Population and Environment, and MacDonald would become editor there in 1999. Five years later, in 2004, Abernethy would be photographed arm-in-arm with a smiling, tuxedoed MacDonald holding a plaque awarded to him for his work on Jews by the white supremacist publication, The Occidental Quarterly. With the plaque came a $10,000 check.

By 2000, MacDonald already was openly endorsing the idea -- popular in neo-Nazi and white supremacist circles -- that Jewish-supported liberal immigration policies could lead to a race war. He had already said much the same in 1998's The Culture of Critique, when he wrote: "I believe that in the United States we are presently heading down a volatile path – a path that leads to ethnic warfare and to the development of collectivist, authoritarian, and racialist enclaves."

Testifying for a 'Pro-Nazi'

MacDonald started the new millennium off with a bang when he agreed to testify as an expert witness for the British Holocaust denier David Irving in a London libel trial. Irving had sued American professor Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books, claiming that she defamed him in her 1993 book, Denying the Holocaust. Irving (who was released from an Austrian prison in late 2006 after serving 13 months for denying many aspects of the Holocaust), accused Lipstadt of damaging his reputation by writing that he had deliberately falsified history. Irving lost the internationally watched trial, with the judge ruling that he had "a distinctly pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish bias."

Irving sought out MacDonald's expert testimony on how Jews work as a group to harm gentiles. Irving had read the part of MacDonald's trilogy that described the alleged suppression of Irving's work as "an example of Jewish tactics for combating anti-Semitism." MacDonald was happy to comply, flying to London in January 2000. During testimony, Irving asked MacDonald if he "perceived the Jewish community as working in a certain way in order to suppress a certain book." MacDonald answered in the affirmative and added that there were "several tactics the Jewish organizations have used." MacDonald later wrote about his decision to testify in an article published in the Journal of Historical Review, a well-known Holocaust denial journal published in California. In the article, MacDonald writes that Jews undertake various strategies against their "enemies." One is to distort history by presenting "Jews and Judaism in a positive light and their enemies in a negative light, often with little regard for historical accuracy."

Media reports about MacDonald's testimony hit CSULB like an earthquake. Professors from many departments realized, often after reading MacDonald's university website descriptions of his work for the first time, that they had a major anti-Semitic activist in their midst -- not merely a quiet colleague with possibly controversial research interests. His comments to the local press solidified this growing reputation. MacDonald told reporter Tony Ortega after the trial that he was "agnostic" on the Holocaust and, when asked if a race war was coming, said: "That's right, exactly. I think that's a real possibility. We're entering a brave new world here, and we really don't know what's going to happen." (MacDonald later disputed the accuracy of the quote, but New Times LA stood by Ortega's story.)

The awakening

Most of the blowback took place on the College of Liberal Arts' listserv, where MacDonald engaged in verbal warfare with a handful of his colleagues. They challenged him on whether he believed the Holocaust had happened. His reply was that he didn't have enough information to make a call about the details of the Holocaust, as the issue was "simply not relevant to any important theoretical issues to me." They also challenged him on his read of Jewish history, an important part of which CSULB History Professor Don Schwarz called "unsupportable."

As his colleagues finally began to read his books, many were downright horrified. Philosophy Professor Warren Weinstein told his colleagues that after reading A People that Shall Dwell Alone he felt MacDonald's work was not science at all, but "something else, masquerading as science." Its closest analogue: "It is in the great tradition of Nazi and Stalinist science which clearly and scientifically proved that their respective insanities were objectively true and defensible."

Once again, Martin Fiebert called MacDonald out, this time writing an open letter to his "close friend" that demanded that MacDonald explain his views on the Holocaust and asked him whether he felt responsible if his work were to be used as a justification for neo-Nazi beliefs. Fiebert also pushed for his department to issue a statement calling on MacDonald to discuss the "implications" of his work -- an effort that failed as many both in the department and outside decided to leave the controversy behind. Sociology professor Barry M. Dank complained, "Even on this list, there is very little interest." One professor went so far as to suggest that grading papers was more important than discussing MacDonald's views.

Not everyone on the listserv believed that MacDonald had done anything wrong. A few argued that MacDonald's views should not be discussed because that would threaten academic freedom. Another, English professor Kent Richmond, defended MacDonald in 2000 and still backs him fully. "You are 6-7 years too late [in investigating MacDonald]," he wrote the Report after a reporter visited CSULB in November. "This issue was discussed in great detail and resolved on campus many years ago, with both Kevin and evolutionary psychologists vindicated."

The campus administration, too, said very little. CSULB officials categorically defended MacDonald's academic freedom to express his views, but added that they "did not necessarily reflect those of the university."


The measure of MacDonald

MacDonald's testimony for Irving led to some soul-searching among evolutionary psychologists who had worked closely with the maverick psychology professor.

Steven Pinker, the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, wrote that MacDonald's work fails "basic tests of scientific credibility." Another scientist, John Tooby, who, along with his wife Leda Cosmides, gave the field of evolutionary psychology its name in 1992, directly challenged MacDonald's work. Tooby told Salon.com in 2000, "MacDonald's ideas -- not just on Jews -- violate fundamental principles of the field." John Hartung, the associate editor of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology and an associate professor of anesthesiology at the State University of New York, called MacDonald's The Culture of Critique "quite disturbing, seriously misinformed about evolutionary genetics, and suffering from a huge blind spot about the nature of Christianity."

At around the same time, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES), of which MacDonald was then a board member, began an investigation into his work. A forum, to be held at the group's annual meeting, was organized by Dan Kriegman, founder of the Psychoanalytic Couple and Family Institute of New England and a faculty member at the Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis, that featured two other specialists in evolutionary psychology, one of them Pinker. Although the panel was critical of MacDonald's work, James Fetzer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, at one point defended MacDonald with a call for academic free speech.

But Kriegman, who says MacDonald "believes his own nonsense," produced a 50-page analysis that tore MacDonald's work apart and deemed it "pseudo-scientific theorizing." Referring to the fact that MacDonald became obsessed with Jews in college when he felt they were using or excluding him, Kriegman wrote in an E-mail: "MacDonald is not the first person to avoid the narcissistic injury of having his ideas rejected by concluding that there was a conspiracy against him rather than becoming aware of the substandard nature [as evidenced in his trilogy] of his thinking."

The burgeoning controversy over MacDonald's anti-Semitism had no effect on his most important academic post at that time: serving (until 2004) as editor of the journal Population and Environment. In fact, MacDonald stacked the editorial board with intellectual allies, including the journal's white supremacist former editor Virginia Abernethy and race scientist J. Philippe Rushton. MacDonald was now able to freely push his own and his friends' controversial research in an academic journal that had the important and prestigious distinction of being peer-reviewed.

During MacDonald's editorship, there were several complaints brought about the quality of the journal's scholarship and the fact that the publication seemed to have strayed from its mission, according to Landis MacKellar, who is on staff at the Vienna Institute of Demography and edited the journal after MacDonald. MacKellar said: "Among the complaints were that the journal was publishing an unusually high number of papers written by members of the editorial board and that, contrary to most journals, the more controversial the piece, the less solid the scholarship often appeared to be." Kluwer Publishing commissioned an independent assessment that confirmed these problems. As a result, the publisher dissolved the editorial board and replaced it with new members before relaunching the journal.

Lately, MacDonald's academic publishing has slowed and he has complained that academic venues won't publish his work. Even so, articles by MacDonald are still appearing in a few places, including the Human Ethology Bulletin. And he still has prominent academic supporters, including Bob Burgess, a professor of human development at Penn State who graduated from CSULB and co-edited a 2005 book with MacDonald. Burgess said he had "admired [MacDonald's] work for many years." He called it, "dispassionate, logical, and empirical" and, though it may be "politically incorrect," critical to dealing with the realities of diversity.

Hanging with haters

Six months after the 2000 Irving trial, MacDonald told the Chronicle of Higher Education that he was "done with Jews." That was a lie. MacDonald is producing a lot of new work on Jews that is in high demand in white supremacist circles. After the trial, MacDonald was welcomed with open arms by the Charles Martel Society, a white supremacist organization created in 2001 by Bill Regnery, a publishing magnate who also bankrolls a white supremacist think tank, the National Policy Institute. One of the society's main activities is publishing The Occidental Quarterly, a racist journal devoted to the idea that as whites become a minority "the civilization and free governments that whites have created" will be jeopardized.

The society, whose private website is password-accessible only, holds what are apparently secretive, annual meetings. MacDonald spoke three times to the group, in 2001, 2002 and 2004, on the topics of "What Makes Western Culture Unique?," "Understanding Jewish Activism" and "Empire Building and Jewish Identity." Since its launch in 2000, MacDonald has published several articles in the society's journal, which in 2004 put out a special monograph on MacDonald's work, "Understanding Jewish Influence: A Study in Ethnic Activism." MacDonald also serves on the quarterly's editorial advisory board.

MacDonald is so beloved by Regnery-backed outfits that in 2004 the Quarterly awarded its first prize ever to him during a black-tie event held in Washington, D.C., at the luxurious Sky Room. MacDonald was honored with the "Jack London Literary Prize" and handed a check for $10,000 in recognition of his work on Jews. MacDonald reciprocated by offering to serve on the advisory committee of Regnery's white supremacist think tank, the National Policy Institute, which was launched in 2005. (He quit the institute last fall, after the Report disclosed his position there on a CSULB listserv.) In addition, a chapter by MacDonald was just published in Race and the American Prospect: Essays on the Racial Realities of our Nation and our Time, a volume backed by the National Policy Institute.

Anti-Semites also rave about MacDonald's works. David Duke extols MacDonald and cites his trilogy as central to his thinking about the dangers posed by Jews in his autobiography,My Awakening, where Duke explains how he came to be an anti-Semite. (Duke, an infamous neo-Nazi and former Klan leader, later published a shortened version of his autobiography under the title Jewish Supremacism.) Longtime neo-Nazi Victor Gerhard wrote in a 2003 E-mail exchange that MaDonald's The Culture of Critique "is completely true; that to rail against blacks and Hispanics without mentioning Jews is like complaining about the symptoms and not the disease."

Several white supremacist leaders traveled to Washington to attend The Occidental Quarterly's 2004 celebration for MacDonald, including Duke; Don Black, founder of Stormfront, the oldest and most important American hate site and forum on the Web; Jamie Kelso, a senior moderator at Stormfront; and the head of the neo-Nazi National Vanguard, Kevin Alfred Strom. By 2005, MacDonald was openly hobnobbing with anti-Semites, in particular Kelso. Last March, Kelso said that he was in Los Angeles for a "business meeting" with MacDonald at his university office.

MacDonald is also featured in Stormfront member Brian Jost's anti-immigrant film "The Line in the Sand," where he appears blaming Jews for destroying America by supporting immigration from developing countries. "They have wanted to essentially end European domination of this society," MacDonald told the filmmakers, "and I think they are well on their way to doing that."
Wrong and Right
MacDonald is doing his best to stifle further debate among his colleagues about his anti-Semitic theories and white supremacist activism. After the Report began contacting professors for comment about MacDonald last fall, psychology department faculty members met with the staff of the Office of Equity and Diversity about possible responses to MacDonald's research. In retaliation, MacDonald sent out a threatening notice to his colleagues, which claimed there was an "ongoing and serious attempt to impair my constitutional rights and academic freedom" that could result in "civil liability." Saying he was speaking on the advice of an attorney, MacDonald stated he would "carefully monitor such actions, meetings and/or investigations to vigilantly safeguard my civil and constitutional rights."

MacDonald's threats didn't stop the psychology department from finally taking action. In December, the department passed three resolutions prompted by MacDonald's research. One strongly condemned the knowing misuse of psychological research "by groups that disseminate views of racial/ethnic superiority and/or racial/ethnic hatred" and pointed to the American Psychological Association's ethical principles, which require its members to "take all reasonable steps to prevent the misuse or misrepresentation of their work." The department also passed resolutions defending academic freedom and supporting diversity.

Under pressure after the resolutions were passed, MacDonald put up a disclaimer on his website that said that "nothing on this website should be interpreted to suggest that I condone white racial superiority, genocide, Nazism, or Holocaust denial." MacDonald claimed that he had nothing to do with such groups and asked that no one use his opinions "to support discrimination against Jews or any other group." Regardless, MacDonald is still listed in the latest Occidental Quarterly as a member of that racist publication's editorial advisory board.

The university administration backs MacDonald unequivocally. CSULB spokeswoman Toni Beron refused to make any comments about the nature of MacDonald's research, telling the Report, "The university will support MacDonald's academic freedom and freedom of speech."

Not long after the Report visited CSULB in November, the university shut down any further discussion of MacDonald and his research on the College of Liberal Arts' E-mail list. It was a moment of high irony, given that university officials like Beron and Green had based their defense of MacDonald's work on the lofty notions of academic freedom and free speech.

The cover provided MacDonald and his dubious research under this rubric of "academic freedom" brings into question the sincerity of the diversity commitments made by CSULB -- commitments that helped the campus earn the 2006 University Committed to Diversity designation from Minority Access, Inc. Asked by the Report about the apparent conflict between the ideals of academic freedom and diversity, Craig Smith, who runs the CSULB Center for First Amendment Studies and is on the board of trustees for the entire California State University system, said the school is "hamstrung in reacting" until formal complaints are made against MacDonald by students or faculty members. Smith did say that MacDonald's work and associations with hate groups should "certainly be looked at" by the university.

All of which means that Kevin MacDonald, critic of the Jews, will likely soldier on. Even though he now concedes that he dislikes Jews, he insists that that is irrelevant and should not stop the world from taking his research on them seriously. "In the end, does it really matter if my motivation at this point is less than pristine?" he asks in all apparent sincerity. "Isn't the only question whether I am right?"

Where Mel Gibson Got His Anti-Semitism

"Fucking Jews!"

So began Mel Gibson's now infamous anti-Semitic rant to Los Angeles sheriff's deputies who pulled him over on suspicion of drunken driving last July. "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," the world-famous movie actor continued, before asking his arresting officer: "Are you a Jew?"

After his tirade made international news, Gibson promptly disappeared into an addiction clinic. He left behind a statement, released through a spokesman, begging the Jewish community for forgiveness and suggesting that booze was to blame. He was, he wrote, "in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display." But their origin is easy enough to pinpoint -- the extremist Catholic beliefs Gibson learned at the knees of his anti-Semitic father.

Gibson's dad, Hutton Gibson, is an important player in the shadowy world of radical traditionalist Catholicism, also known as "integrism" or Catholic separatism. This religious subculture's teachings have little in common with the modern Roman Catholic Church and its universalistic theology. Hutton Gibson, for one, is a well-known Holocaust denier who believes the Second Vatican Council reforms of the 1960s, which made the church vastly more tolerant of other faiths, were the result of "a Masonic plot backed by the Jews." He is particularly incensed by the council's historic declaration, "Nostra Aetate," which condemned "all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews." In Gibson's world, the Second Vatican Council's liberalizing reforms are rejected and anti-Semitic teachings and conspiracy theories are heartily embraced.

Like father, like son.

Mel Gibson has his own traditionalist house of worship near Los Angeles -- a church, funded entirely by him, that is not recognized by the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese. It is unclear what is said in the hallowed halls of the Holy Family Chapel, since, unlike virtually all other Catholic churches, it is closed to the public. What is known is that Gibson is reported to have blamed Jews for forcing him to cut a scene, in which Jews and their descendants are held responsible for the murder of Christ, from his 2004 film, "The Passion of the Christ." Sounding a bit like he did that July night in Malibu, Gibson told The New Yorker: "If I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house. They'd come to kill me."

Few Americans defended Mel Gibson's drunken rant about the evils of the Jews. But radical traditionalist Catholics did. A three-year investigation of this subculture by the Intelligence Report has found that these Catholic extremists, including the Gibsons, may well represent the largest population of anti-Semites in the United States. Organized into a network of more than a dozen organizations, scores of websites and several extremist churches and monasteries, radical traditionalists in the U.S. are preaching anti-Semitism to as many as 100,000 followers. A few, such as the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's family, Christopher Ferrara, are even movers and shakers in important right-wing Republican circles.

Jew-bashing at the Holiday Inn

The Philadelphia airport Holiday Inn is an odd place to celebrate a Catholic mass, especially in a city filled with lovely churches and an extraordinary, century-old Romanesque cathedral. But the inn is where the radical traditionalist Catholic outfit, (CFN), held its annual conference in 2003, dressing up one end of a drab conference room with an altar, incense, and a statue of the Virgin Mary, and transforming it into a church.

The rest of the hall looked rather different. Vendors set up folding tables along almost every inch of the remaining walls, piling them high with books, videotapes and Catholic accessories. The stacks were notable for the prominence of anti-Semitic and extremist materials, from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Hutton Gibson's Is the Pope Catholic? to CFN head John Vennari's popular anti-Semitic conspiracy tract, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. Priests in Roman collars staffed many tables; brown-cloaked monks manned others.

CFN conferences hearken back to the era before the Roman Catholic Church enacted the liberalizing Vatican II reforms, which removed from the weekly Mass prayers for the conversion of the Jews and also ended the centuries-old practice of celebrating the Mass in Latin, the Vatican's official language. At the Holiday Inn in 2003, Sunday's religious activities started with a now rarely celebrated hour-long recitation of the rosary. After that, apostate priests conducted a rendition of the Latin Mass, a format dating to the Middle Ages, before an audience remarkable for the veils that covered every woman's hair and the time it spent on its knees.

Vatican II did not ban these time-honored celebrations, and many Catholics who call themselves "traditionalists" continue to worship in this manner in churches that remain an official part of the Holy See (these churches are awarded an "indult" that allows them to continue celebrating the Latin Mass). The vast majority of those who practice Catholicism in this older form are unrelated to the radical traditionalist Catholics who gathered in Philadelphia. Indeed, the groups that gave presentations at the CFN conference preach a theology specifically rejected by the Vatican, and many have been declared schismatic, or officially separated from the church.

The participants at the CFN conference spent most of their time bashing Jews and, in particular, dwelling on the perils of much-feared "Judeo-Masonic" plot. As preached from the pulpit that day, the alleged conspiracy involves ancient, shadowy fraternities such as the Masons and the Illuminati, who are seen as puppets in a Jewish master plan aimed at destroying the Catholic Church. The theory is laid out in great detail in Venarri's Alta Vendita, which has been compared to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous tract also alleging a global plot by the Jews.

But the "Judeo-Masonic" plot wasn't the only fearful conspiracy that was described that day. There was also the "Marxist-Jewish" scheme that is ruining our schools, the "Jewish-homosexual" alliance that is destroying the priesthood, and, naturally, the 9/11 conspiracy, which has to do with the fact that the 2001 terrorist attacks were actually "predicted by the Blessed Virgin Mary 84 years ago."

The passion of the anti-Semites

The Philadelphia Jew-bashing was not a one-off. Several such conferences are held quietly around the country each year, and they attract thousands upon thousands of people. The Intelligence Report also attended a radical traditionalist conference held in 2005, a year and a half after CFN's. Put on by the St. Joseph Forum (SJF) of South Bend, Ind., the conference was held at a Quality Inn up the road from Notre Dame, the esteemed Catholic university seen by conference attendees as fatally corrupted by multiculturalism and religious tolerance.

The SJF conference, attended by more than 250 people, was awash with extremists. A favorite of the crowd was Father Stephen Somerville, who Mel Gibson employed as his spiritual adviser during the filming of "The Passion of the Christ." Somerville was suspended in 2004 by the Vatican for schismatic behavior and is a popular speaker at radical traditionalist Catholic conferences. At the forum, he raged at "a corrupt subculture or network of homosexuals" ruining the priesthood.

But the most extreme comments of the weekend came from Brother Anthony Mary of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a monastery and order based in Richmond, N.H. (The Slaves were founded in the 1950s by Boston-based priest Leonard Feeney, an anti-Semite ultimately excommunicated by the Vatican.) Mary's presentation was entitled, "The Fruits of Zionism."

"The perpetual enemy of Christ is the Jewish nation," Brother Mary roared, explaining that the aim of the Jews is to "destroy all Christian nations." Mary blamed Jews for both world wars -- an opinion also mouthed by the drunken Mel Gibson -- and a coming world government. Professing from the pulpit a "great hatred" of Jews, Brother Mary declared that "Jews are the synagogue of Satan" -- a phrase that is also part of the official ideology of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations. "We must always and everywhere," he added, "oppose Jewish schemes."

An unsavory tradition

Since the colonial period, American society has been marred by sometimes savage anti-Catholic prejudice, an antipathy that mushroomed as waves of Irish, Italian and German Catholics arrived here in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Anti-Catholic hatred fueled the 1850s rise of the Know Nothings, the largest third party in U.S. history, and it also drove the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, when nearly 4 million Americans became members.

Yet some of America's greatest peddlers of hate have themselves been extremist Catholics. The best known of these was Father Charles Coughlin, the Michigan "radio priest" who at his height in the late 1930s was spewing pro-Nazi propaganda to 3.5 million listeners on his CBS radio broadcasts. Repeating common anti-Semitic canards, Coughlin blamed the Great Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers"; Jews also got the blame for communism. Two weeks after the German national pogrom known as Kristallnacht, Coughlin blamed the Jews for their own persecution, making him a hero in the German press. Also in 1938, Coughlin published an article in his Social Justice weekly -- which at one point had 1 million subscribers -- attacking Jews, atheists and communists. Parts of the article were plagiarized directly from the English translation of a 1935 speech by Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels. Coughlin was finally forced off the air in October 1939, the month after Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland.

Two other priests, both now dead, serve as the primary inspiration for today's radical traditionalist Catholics. The first is Father Denis Fahey, an Irish priest who died in 1954 and was much admired by Coughlin -- just as he is also admired by today's neo-Nazis, some of whom have contributed a number of his quotes to "1,001 Quotes By and About Jews," a feature on the racist Stormfront website.

Fahey was a prolific author whose main topic was the inherent evil of the "Jewish Nation." Repeating classic anti-Semitic allegations, Fahey blamed nearly all iniquity on Jews. According to an article by Sandra Miesel in Crisis, a conservative Catholic magazine, Fahey "enjoyed quoting papal policy statements against Jews, coyly refused to reject the long-debunked Protocols [of the Elders of Zion], praised the anti-Semitic activities of [automaker] Henry Ford, and denied the death toll from the Holocaust." Taking on the church's main bogeyman in the early 1900s, Fahey laid atheistic communism directly at the feet of the Jews: "The real forces behind Bolshevism are Jewish forces, and Bolshevism is really an instrument in the hands of the Jews for their establishment of their future Messianic kingdom."

While spouting the same kind of anti-Jewish propaganda as the Nazis, Fahey crafted an argument that he believed should exempt him from the label of anti-Semite. Fahey claimed he didn't hate the Jews per se, but merely opposed their "naturalistic aims." Since he also argued that Jews can't help but work to further those aims -- communism, the destruction of Christianity, and the like -- this was a distinction without a difference. (Today's radical traditionalist Catholics, including the Society of St. Pius X, a far-right powerhouse that has thousands of supporters, continue to claim they are not anti-Semitic, just against "Jewish naturalism.")

Along with Coughlin, Fahey is the main source for The Plot Against the Church, a 1967 book supposedly written by 12 clerics under the pen name "Maurice Pinay." Similar to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the book blames Jews, also referred to as the "synagogue of Satan," for every evil that has befallen Catholics from Roman times to the present. Citing ancient papal writings, the book suggests that Jews be expelled or enslaved, segregated and forced to wear visible marks. It's little wonder that modern neo-Nazis praise Pinay's work. But so do large numbers of radical traditionalist Catholics, and the book is sold by Omni Christian Book Club, the favorite bookseller of today's radical traditionalists.

The beat goes on

The second great inspiration for contemporary radical traditionalists is Father Leonard Feeney, another fervent anti-Semite who was for years a leader of Boston's St. Benedict Center, a Jesuit institution. Feeney is best known in Catholic circles for his especially hard-line version of the "no salvation outside the church" doctrine.

Feeney also is known for preaching against Jews on the Boston Common with his followers. Although he was finally excommunicated for disobedience in 1953, he rapidly founded his own order, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and started a newsletter, The Point, that was suffused with anti-Semitism. Feeney's newsletter blamed Jews for controlling and biasing the press and for creating communism. One article lambasted Jews for their role in the "anti-hate" initiatives that it despised. Another, published in April 1958, was entitled "Newspapers and The New York Times: Other Jews and Minister Sulzberger" and summed up the Jewish "problem" like this: "Essential to the understanding of our chaotic times is the knowledge that the Jewish race constitutes a united anti-Christian bloc within Christian society, and is working for the overthrow of that society by every means at its disposal."

Feeney did reconcile with the church in 1974, four years before his death. But his anti-Semitic ideas remain popular in radical traditionalist Catholic circles and in the New Hampshire monastery his followers started, which still endorses his anti-Semitic ideology, to the point that a New Hampshire bishop lambasted the monastery's teachings in 2004 as "blatantly anti-Semitic" and "offensive."

The bishop isn't the only one who sees Feeney as anti-Semitic. One white supremacist has created an online archive of Feeney's writings (fatherfeeney.org) for the benefit of fellow Aryans. It is part of the so-called "World White Web."

A dynamic movement

Today's radical traditionalist Catholics -- the theological descendants of Feeney and Fahey -- are part of a thriving, energetic movement, even if it is one that is tiny when compared to the approximately 70 million Americans who are mainstream Catholics. The dozen or so organizations that make up this movement read each other's writings, buy each other's conference tapes, and co-publish major theological works. They put on conferences several times each year that are served by circuit-riding preachers like Brother Mary and Father Nicholas Gruner.

The movement is important for a number of reasons. It is growing, and spreading its anti-Semitic teachings, at a time when anti-Semitism and religious conflict generally are clearly resurgent around the world. Some of the most radical of the traditionalists are increasingly interacting with neo-Nazis and their fellow travelers. For example, John Sharpe, head of the anti-Semitic Legion of St. Louis, attended the 2006 conference of American Renaissance, a racist publication that specializes in race and intelligence. That same year, Father Gruner, leader of the International Fatima Rosary Crusade, attended a conference of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust denial journal. Gruner celebrated a special Mass at the Washington, D.C., conference, which was also attended by an array of long-time neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other anti-Semites.

The radical traditionalists may also be gaining influence on the larger political scene. The best example of this is Christopher Ferrara, the lawyer who in 1990 started the American Catholic Lawyers Association to defend "Catholics in religious and civil liberties cases." Ferrara writes for anti-Semitic traditionalist journals like The Remnant. He recently said Pope Benedict XVI had "abased himself by entering a synagogue." He uses Robert Sungenis, a particularly venomous anti-Semite, to staff the "Apologetics Desk" at his legal organization. But he also was the lawyer for the family of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose feeding tube was removed in 2005 after a protracted court battle. In that role, Ferrara rubbed shoulders with key Republican and Christian Right leaders who convinced Congress to pass a law to protect Schiavo that was ultimately killed by the courts.

If radical traditionalists belong to a particular sect -- and many do not -- it is most typically the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a sprawling international group that publishes reams of anti-Semitic writings on its website and is based, in the United States, in Kansas City, Kan. In the late 1980s, Pope John Paul II excommunicated all SSPX priests and declared the sect formally in schism, but it has continued to grow. In America, 20,000 to 30,000 people are members.

Many of these radical traditionalists embrace "sedevacantism," a word derived from the Latin that refers to a period when "the see [or seat] is vacant." While the term is the official Roman Catholic word for the period between a pope's death and the election of his successor, many radicals are sedevacantists in the sense that they believe that there has not been a real pope for years (typically, since 1958). Some have adopted conspiracy theories about rigged papal elections and even the idea that the authentic pope is secretly being held in captivity.

The radicals' understanding of what has gone wrong with the world boils down to a few basic things. They believe that most of the theological developments within the church since Vatican II have been egregiously wrong, especially with regard to reconciling with Jews and the followers of other faiths. They despise the Vatican's ecumenical outreach efforts. And they lament the fall of the Latin Mass and argue that the new Mass, "Novus Ordo," does not guarantee salvation. Through it all, disdain and even outright hatred for Jews flows like a poisonous river.

A Joyless faith

For the vast majority of Catholics, the existence of an anti-Semitic, sedevacantist subculture is highly distressing. The church has worked extraordinarily hard in recent decades to distance itself from anti-Semitic teachings and the idea of forcing its view of the world on unbelievers. And, by most accounts, it has been successful, with many Jewish and organizations from other faiths praising its efforts. Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, signaled his gratitude after the 2005 death of Pope John Paul II, who, he said, "revolutionized Catholic-Jewish relations" by denouncing anti-Semitism as a "sin against God and humanity." More recently, Pope Benedict XVI's repeated clarifications of statements he made about the Islamic faith in September reflected a commitment to interfaith dialogue.

Yet the ranks of the radical traditionalists seem to be swelling. Michael Cuneo, a scholar of Catholicism, wrote in his 1997 book The Smoke of Satan that weekly attendance at American chapels of the Society of St. Pius X had been growing at about 10% annually since the late 1980s. Today, SSPX, which raises its own funds without help from Rome, employs 336 member priests in 27 different countries, teaches 226 seminarians in six international seminaries, runs 130 priories, and serves more than 600 Mass centers. The group also runs nine retreat houses, 14 major schools, and another 50 schools connected to priories or chapels.

Stephen Hand, a respected Catholic theologian and editor of the Web-based Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports, wrote in 2000 of his worries about the growth of the movement. "Integrism," he said in his book Tradition, Traditionalists and Private Judgment in a reference to radical traditionalist Catholicism, "is a bitter affair, a joyless 'faith.' It thrives on polemics, on opposition and hatred."

There is little question that much of the world is seeing a resurgence of ethnic and religious hatreds and accompanying violence. As dangerous conflicts between Christianity and radical versions of Islam multiply around the globe, the last thing humanity needs is still one more form of religiously based extremism.

A Split In the Racist Right

For a gathering of people devoted to denouncing the inferiority of blacks and sounding the alarm about civilization-threatening Muslims, the biannual conferences thrown by the New Century Foundation, publisher of the racist newsletter American Renaissance, are decidedly genteel affairs. Men dress in suits and ties, women in formal business attire, and there are no uniformed skinheads or Klansmen to be seen. Large plasma television screens, Starbucks coffee spreads and fancy linens adorn the hotel meeting hall. Epithets have no place here.

Or at least they didn't. At the latest edition of the conferences that began in 1994, held this February at the Hyatt Dulles hotel, a nasty spat broke out that upset the gathering's decorum -- and may even shape the future of the radical right.

It began when David Duke, the former Klan leader and author of Jewish Supremacism, strode to a microphone after French author Guillaume Faye wrapped up a talk vilifying Muslims entitled "The Threat to the West." Duke thanked Faye for remarks that "touched my genes." But then he went one further.

"There is a power in the world that dominates our media, influences our government and that has led to the internal destruction of our will and spirit," Duke said, according to an undisputed account in The Forward newspaper.

"Tell us, tell us," someone in the back yelled.

"I'm not going to say it," Duke replied. Laughter began to fill the room, until a short, angry man leaped from his seat, walked up to Duke and began to curse.

"You fucking Nazi, you've disgraced this meeting!" he said.

And with that, Michael Hart, a Jewish astrophysicist and long-time attendee at American Renaissance conferences, headed for the door. As many as 50 people at the conference began to jeer and point at the rapidly disappearing Hart.

This extraordinary incident marked the beginning of an open rift between those on the radical right who see blacks, Hispanics and Muslims as the primary enemy, and those who say "the Jews" are ultimately behind every evil -- a split that has usually stayed just below the surface but now threatens a leading institution of American extremism. While in the past he has managed to bridge this divide mainly by ignoring it, American Renaissance founder Jared Taylor now must finally come to terms with the split. His dilemma boils down to this: Throw out the anti-Semites and try to build a larger movement with electoral possibilities like those increasingly seen in Britain and Germany; or openly join hands with the very energetic neo-Nazis, even though that means the loss of any remaining shred of respectability.

"These are the makings of a major schism," wrote Shawn Mercer, co-founder and moderator of American Renaissance's AR List, an E-mail group. "If American Renaissance ultimately fails as a result of this donnybrook at the convention, it will be a sad, possibly fatal turn of events for the future of whites."

Jews and the radical right

The traditional enemy of the American radical right, going back to the Civil War and even before, has been the black man. Given the numbers of voters who would be created by enfranchising former slaves -- and the historical fact that blacks outnumbered whites in many southern counties -- that is no surprise. But radical anger also has been directed throughout U.S. history at each new wave of foreign immigrants, and, in both the 19th century and the 20th, that included Jews.

European anti-Semitism made its way across the ocean as well, infecting Americans with ideas about secret Jewish plans for world domination and alleged ritual practices like the murder of Christian children. Increasingly, hatred of Jews filtered into groups like the Klan -- most famously, in 1915, when the group was reborn on the strength of the lynching of Jewish businessman Leo Frank of Atlanta. (Frank was falsely accused of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl.)

In the 1920s, auto tycoon Henry Ford published anti-Semitic treatises culminating in the book, The International Jew. In the following decade, Father Charles Coughlin, a radical Catholic, railed against Jews in radio broadcasts heard by millions. There followed a brief lull in anti-Semitism due to revelations about the Nazi genocide, but it wasn't long before Jew-hatred came roaring back.

This was partly due to the spread of Christian Identity, a radical theology that claims that Jews are biologically descended from Satan and are the chief enemy of the white man. This ideology, which increasingly crept into traditionally Christian groups like the Klan, helped to start the broad-based change that has occurred over the last half century or so -- the Nazification of the American radical right. Growing anti-Semitism also reflected the view of many segregationists that Jews were behind the black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The bombings of several Southern synagogues by white supremacists underlined this conviction.

In recent decades, however, mainstream American society has rejected anti-Semitism, to the point where it is generally seen as more acceptable to voice ugly views of blacks than Jews. And this has not been lost on certain sectors of the radical right that have become increasingly interested in gaining real political power. Given recent developments in the United States -- especially large-scale Latin American immigration and the threat of radical Islamist terror -- these sectors have wondered if it wasn't better to direct their hate at people of color, rather than Jews who are seen by most Americans as white. Seeing the electoral success of neofascists in Germany and Britain who aim their wrath at dark-skinned immigrants and Muslims generally, many American radical leaders have sought to dispense with anti-Semitism.

Black attack

In 1990, Jared Taylor, a Yale graduate who had spent 17 years working in Japan, joined the active white supremacist scene with his launching of American Renaissance, a magazine focusing on the alleged links between race and intelligence and on eugenics, the discredited "science" of breeding better human beings. The magazine scrupulously avoided racist epithets, employed the language of academic journals, and sought to put a palatable face on hate (though that didn't stop Taylor from describing blacks as "deviant," dissipated" and "pathological," or later writing a booklet that claimed that blacks are far more "crime-prone" than whites).

At the same time, Taylor made it clear that he had no problem with Jews. At the group's very first conference, held in Atlanta in 1994, the dinner speaker was a rabbi named Mayer Schiller, and the meal was kosher. Taylor banned discussion of the so-called "Jewish question" from American Renaissance venues, and, by 1997, had kicked Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis off his E-mail list. In recent years, a growing number of Jews have attended Taylor's conferences.

But Taylor, who operates in a world that is peopled with anti-Semites as well as black-bashing "white nationalists," also tried to have it both ways. Atlanta lawyer Sam Dickson, for instance, has been invited to speak at every one of Taylor's biannual conferences -- despite a long history of Holocaust denial that includes membership on the editorial board of The Barnes Review, a journal that specializes in that topic. Joe Sobran, a columnist fired from the National Review for his anti-Semitism and repeat author for the Holocaust-denying Journal of Historical Review, gave a speech on Jewish power at Taylor's 2004 conference. Don Black, the former Klan leader who runs the neo-Nazi Stormfront web forum, has attended many conferences and visited Taylor's home. Another attendee and old Taylor pal, Mark Weber, heads up the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review.

Taylor, whose journal and conferences were fast becoming key institutions of the American radical right, tried to keep internal peace. But that was not to be.

In 2003, a remarkable E-mail debate between the late racist writer Sam Francis and neo-Nazi lawyer Victor Gerhard was made public by Gerhard. In it, Francis, widely regarded as the leading white nationalist intellectual in America, lambasted Gerhard, who had been an official of the neo-Nazi National Alliance, for his views of the Jews. He denounced what he saw as "a monomaniacal obsession with the omnipotent Jew" and instead discussed the threat of blacks and Hispanics. The E-mail exchange was widely circulated on the American radical right.

The same period saw several groups -- the Social Contract Press, the Charles Martel Society (publisher of The Occidental Quarterly), the Pioneer Fund, the Council of Conservative Citizens and the recently formed National Policy Institute -- focus in on the perceived ills of blacks, Hispanics and Muslims. Joining them was a new crop of racist intellectuals with no interest in the Jews.

Taylor, it seemed, could not stop the inevitable. The split between those who saw Jews as the primary enemy and the others was bubbling to the surface.

Battle of words

The biggest threat to Jared Taylor's balancing act has always been David Duke, the former leader of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan who has also been a convinced neo-Nazi since his teens. Duke, who came close to winning a campaign for Louisiana governor in 1992, was for years a celebrity on the radical right. Still, Taylor has sought to discourage Duke from attending his American Renaissance conferences ever since Duke crashed the first one in 1994. But even in years when he didn't enter the hall, Duke was often found outside, talking to participants.

It wasn't just Duke, either. Over the years, more and more participants at Taylor's conferences were Duke allies -- most notably, Don Black and supporters of Black's Stormfront website, including Stormfront moderator Jamie Kelso.

This year, the Duke/Black/Kelso crew was larger than ever. In an interview with the Intelligence Report, Kelso said that he had organized a contingent of some 75 Stormfront supporters to come to the conference. And these supporters were the most enthusiastic members of the 300-strong audience, standing and applauding each speaker after receiving the signal to do so from Kelso. They were also not the only anti-Semites present. Others, not affiliated with Stormfront, included Kevin Alfred Strom of Virginia, leader of the neo-Nazi National Vanguard group; Hal Turner, a neo-Nazi radio host from New Jersey; and David Pringle of Alaska, the former membership coordinator of the neo-Nazi National Alliance.

As a result, the Duke-Hart clash, which occurred on the last day of the conference, rapidly assumed epic proportions, spinning out across the entire radical right. Just days later, Duke published an essay on the conference, expressing deep admiration for Taylor as a man with the courage to tell the truth on race. But he went on to say that non-white immigration and a host of other ills "all have been driven by Jewish extremists in their relentless search for supremacy." Hart, Duke added tartly, had risen "in an almost perfect Jewish caricature and started to scream at me."

That set off an often testy back-and-forth between the two sides.

From London, Nick Griffin, a conference speaker who also heads the whites-only British National Party, denounced those who see behind every evil some kind of "world-Jewish conspiracy." Griffin's BNP, which harshly attacks Muslims and other British minorities, made major electoral gains this May -- a success that Griffin thinks would be undermined by neo-Nazi attacks on Jews. In his essay, Griffin suggested that Jews are a natural ally in the battle against Islam.

Black, on the other hand, threatened to pull his anti-Semitic supporters out of Taylor's conferences. "I guess that would solve the overcrowding problem," Black wrote. "Not only would he cut loose the ... Stormfronters, but, should he apply such an ideological filter [barring anti-Semites], about 90% of his other attendees."

Lawrence Auster, a former American Renaissance speaker who also is a Christian convert with Jewish ancestry, chimed in on his own blog, describing Duke as "a major Jew-hater and an attention hog" and asking Taylor how he could be so "naïve as to allow Duke to attend at all." Another poster to Auster's site added, "It is imperative that neo-Nazis be asked to leave AR. ... European-Americans need to be assured they can affirm themselves and still be decent human beings."

In the end, nearly every "intellectual" on the white nationalist scene was pulled into the debate. So hot was the months-long exchange, in fact, that more than half a dozen major racist thinkers agreed to speak to be interviewed for this article.

Rejecting the Nazis

Virtually all those who denounced anti-Semitism and "Nazis" had no such compunctions when it came to people of color, particularly blacks. Herschel Elias, for instance, said that as a Jewish substitute teacher in public schools near Philadelphia, "I'm very disappointed with black people. Black kids are the worst kids." But he added that he now saw the conference as a "Nazi front."

Another Jew, retired University of Illinois political science professor Robert Weissberg, was a long-time supporter of American Renaissance who spoke at two conferences. In 2000, he argued that Jews and blacks despise one another, but that Jews are even more afraid of white nationalists and so had tended to support policies that empower minorities. Weissberg told the Report that he considered Taylor a friend and had been to his house "on several occasions." But he went on to say that Duke was a "tax evader" (Duke recently served time in federal prison for mail fraud and tax violations) and "provocateur," and that his Stormfront allies were "losers." He said that both Duke and the Stormfronters should be "disinvited" by Taylor.

The list goes on. In separate interviews, numerous "academic racists" complained of the neo-Nazi element at the conference:

Keep reading... Show less
BRAND NEW STORIES

Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Alternet All Access and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.