And of course, in their determinationrnto prove me a “white supremacist,” bothrnChavez and Forster neglect to cite my explicitrndisavowal of white supremacy inrnthe American Renaissance article, a disavowalrnthat I quoted in my letter to thernjournal of December 20. That too is arnpart of the “rest of the story” Chavezrnwould prefer the reader not hear. Thern”reconquest” of the United States, Irnwrote, “does not involve any restorationrnof white supremacy in the political andrnlegal sense that obtained under slaveryrnor segregation, and there is no reasonrnwhy nonwhites who reside in the UnitedrnStates could not enjoy equality ofrnlegal rights.” While Chavez is eagerrnto instruct us in what “respectable conservatism”rnis, she seems to find it inconceivablernthat neither I nor other paleoconservativesrnendorse Warren Court-erarnnotions of political equality, votingrnrights, school integration, etc., and shernfails to show the least grasp that equalityrnbefore the law is the only equality thernConstitution can be said to recognize.rnI do not intend to correct yet again allrnthe distortions of my views that Mr.rnForster has slapped together for her, butrnthis is the full sentence I wrote in AmericanrnRenaissance having to do with “imposingrnadequate fertility controls onrnnon-whites”:rnIf whites wanted to do so [italics inrnoriginal], they could dictate a solutionrnto the racial problem tomorrowrn—by curtailing immigrationrnand sealing the border, by imposingrnadequate fertility controls onrnnonwhites and encouraging a higherrnwhite birth rate, by refusing tornbe bullied into enduring ‘multiculturalism,’rnaffirmative action, civilrnrights laws and policies; and byrnrefusing to submit to culturalrndissolution, inter-racial violencernand insults, and the guilt thatrnmultiraeialists inculcate.rnMy point in this passage was not so muchrnto advocate these specific policies as tornemphasize that at the present time therernis not sufficient white will to supportrnthese or any other policies that will effectivelyrnprotect white Americans from therneventual extinction they face due to therncombination of long-term falling whiternbirthrates with the unrestricted nonwhiternimmigration that Chavez so enthusiasticallyrnsupports.rnAs for the passage about ending “thernpolitical power of nonwhite minoritiesrnand their white anti-white allies,” here isrnthe full sentence, followed by the immediaterncontext:rnWhites must correct the politicalrnand legal order to end the politicalrnpower for nonwhite minorities andrntheir white anti-white allies. Thisrnpolitical effort would involve a radicalrndismantling of all affirmativernaction and civil rights legislation asrnwell as a good part of the federalrnsuperstructure that entrenches minorityrnpower. It also would requirernrecovering an understanding ofrnconstitutional law that permitsrnlocal and state governments torngovern, and private institutionsrnto function independently ofrngovernment.rnAs a foe of affirmative action herself,rnChavez surely cannot find the meaningrnof this context very mysterious or sinister.rnIndeed, I and many other paleoconservativesrnhave repeatedly argued for this andrnsimilar positions in Chronicles, the WashingtonrnTimes, and other places. It simplyrnmeans the abolition of the civil rightsrnand affirmative action machinery ofrnthe federal government. It is perfectlyrnobvious that it is through that machineryrnthat nonwhites and antiwhite whitesrnhave grabbed political power to advancernantiwhite agendas and interests.rnWhile some of the proposals I put forwardrnin the American Renaissance piecernremain problematical to my mind—e.g.,rndespite my proposal for a strict federalistrnsolution to racial conflicts, I am not totallyrnconvinced such a solution wouldrnwork today—I stand by all of them andrnthe piece as a whole as serious efforts torndeal with race and racial conflict. I triedrnto address these issues without the cantrnof egalitarianism, guilt, and grovelingrnthat usually frames both liberal and conservativerndiscussions of race, and it is preciselyrnbecause the article was free of suchrncant that Chavez thinks it is “filth.” Itrntells us a great deal about her mind thatrnshe cannot distinguish. “Filth” for neoconservativesrnis what fails to regurgitaternliberal premises. (For Chronicles readersrnwho wish to read the article for themselves,rnplease write me for a copy at P.O.rnBox 19627, Alexandria, VA 22320-0627).rnMost of the rest of Chavez’s commentsrnstrike me as simply stupid. Both Irnand Louis Farrakhan are concerned withrnrace, so in Chavez’s cant-riddled mindrnthat means I am just as much a bigot asrnhe. But I have never used the kind ofrnracial insults, stereotypes, and slurs thatrnFarrakhan and Wes Pruden use, nor do Irnsubscribe to the kind of paranoid, pseudoseientific,rnand irrationalist cosmologyrnthat Farrakhan endorses. As a matter ofrnfact, when Farrakhan visits the offices ofrnthe major Washington papers, he is receivedrnfar more politely than whites whornspeak far less provocatively in support ofrntheir own race and people.rnWhen I said that not once did any ofrnmy enemies (not, as she says, “critics”—rncritics often contacted me) call me orrnoffer any public criticism of what I hadrnwritten, I was thinking of the time priorrnto my being fired. I do in fact recallrnForster calling me after a Washington Postrnnews story reported that I had been fired.rnI returned Forster’s call and, when herntold me he had been planning an articlernabout me, wished him good day. I hadrnknown since the summer that he wasrnsnooping around, but I had not knownrnuntil then what exactly he was up to. Itrndoes not seem to have occurred to himrnor the rest of them to call me up, ask torninterview me on the record about what Irnhad written, or just discuss it in an openrnand aboveboard manner.rnIn general, the Chavez letter confirmsrnthe account of the neoeonservative mentalityrnI gave in my article. That mentalityrnis so narrowly constricted to its own assumptions,rnvalues, and beliefs that itrnfinds it impossible to give any benefit ofrnthe doubt to those who dissent from it.rnIt is a mind incapable of tolerating or respectingrnany disagreement even as itrnchuckles over how tolerant it is. It is arnmind so enveloped in certainty of its ownrnvirtue that it cannot distinguish betweenrnradically different kinds of deviation, andrnit does not hesitate to mount crusades tornsmash all deviations from itself. Mostrnconservatives are familiar with this mentality,rnif not from firsthand observation,rnthen at least from the results of its blusteringrncourse through history in suchrnwindbags as Cromwell, Robespierre,rnJohn Brown, and the Abolitionists.rnChavez and her brood are well met inrntheir company.rnSamuel Francis’srnPrincipalities & Powers columnrnwill resume next month.rnJULY 1996/5rnrnrn