Announcer: The David Pakman Show at www.DavidPakman.com.
David: All right, we're back on the show, and joining us is Mark Potok, director of
the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center. Hey, great to talk to you again.
Mark Potok: Well, great to talk to you, David.
David: So I have so much to ask you about in light of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting,
and of course, Jared Lee Loughner. One thing that's been coming up lately from some of
the, I don't know that I would call them extreme circles, but certainly less credible, is this
idea that Jared Lee Loughner was Jewish and therefore something. And I just don't understand
what is the incentive among many on the right to try to confirm or indicate that Loughner
in fact was Jewish. In other words, what kind of goal or narrative would that fulfill?
Potok: Well, the place I noticed it this morning was in an essay by Kevin MacDonald, who's
a professor at California State University at Long Beach and a flaming anti-Semite, a
guy who writes about how, you know, Jews have an evolutionary need to undermine Christian
societies in order to protect themselves, and so on. So reading MacDonald, what I see
is, you know, he's hoping, you know, it's just another story that he can, you know,
somehow associate with Jewish wickedness. You know, aside from that, it's hard to say.
I mean, the neo-Nazis are kicking it around. Of course, they're more interested in the
idea that the congresswoman was partly Jewish or, you know, so I'm sure there are conspiracy
theories about the, you know, the Jews set this one up themselves in order to, you know,
be able to attack the right wing, and so on. It's really been quite something.
David: We're also seeing this narrative cropping up now that if we can't be completely sure
that violent rhetoric or inciteful comments or calls to arms were responsible for what
happened and Jared Lee Loughner's actions that somehow we shouldn't really be taking
actions to calm those types of comments. And to me, when I hear that, I think well, how
could we possibly know beyond all doubt all of the factors that affected Jared Lee Loughner?
To you, is that a strawman, the argument that well, if we can't know for sure it was a factor,
we can't really address it or ask people to change?
Potok: It's an utter strawman. Let me say a couple of things about that.
David: Yeah.
Potok: You know, since Saturday, I've done an enormous amount of press, you know, radio
shows and so on, and much of it up against people on the political right. And it seems
quite obvious that, you know, this comes from an email from somewhere, I mean, they are
all reading the same script. And, you know, now is the time to pray, we shouldn't even
be talking about this, only disgusting people on the left have these kinds of conversations.
And just as you say, if you can't precisely show, you know, how this guy was sent out
by thus and such a right-wing group to carry out this mass murder, then no one can talk
about it at all.
But look, I mean, at the end of the day, first of all, the target is a representative, the
highest representative of federal government in Tucson. So it seems perfectly reasonable
to at least look at the possible promenance of this, and you know, was there any political
meaning in it at all? After all, it was a politician who was shot through the head.
And I think that the bottom line is yes.
You know, let me also say, by the way, that very similar kinds of arguments were made
around the murder of Marcelo Lucero, an Ecuadorian immigrant, a few years ago in Suffolk County,
Long Island in New York, that this had nothing to do with the community. You know, in fact,
what had happened was that there had been about 10 years of really vitriolic anti-immigrant
rhetoric, much of it pushed by the Chief County Executive there, a guy named Steve Levy, as
well as a number of other legislators in that state. And of course, you know, when Marcelo
Lucero was killed, you know, first of all, Levy said something to the effect this would've
been a one-day story if it wasn't for the background, which was true, but an incredible
thing to say on his part. But you know, the point was was that all of these legislators
and politicians went running away from their own words as fast as their little feet could
take them. You know, all of a sudden, there was a corpse in the street.
So we're at the same place now. You know, there, it was five white teenagers who carried
out the murder in a kind of street confrontation. You know, in this case, what I would say,
David, is what I see is yes, the man was clearly mentally ill. I don't think it's possible
to read through his incredibly discombobulated and difficult to understand sort of ramblings
without coming to that conclusion. But, you know, he didn't kill his parents, he didn't
shoot up a McDonald's, he didn't invade an elementary school. I think it's a legitimate
thing to say did the kind of atmospherics around him influence his selection of a target?
And I think that clearly the answer is yes.
David: And speaking of his ramblings, I thought it was interesting your comments to Thom Hartmann,
I don't know if it was yesterday or the day before, about this control through grammar
thing that showed up in a number of different places, that he seemed obsessed with. What
else, I mean, that's not the first time we've heard this controlling through grammar idea,
is it?
Potok: Well, what I said about it, and I noticed this on Saturday, actually, right after the
shooting, and talked about it some on Olbermann's show, on "Countdown", you know, what I noticed
was that yes, he talks about this idea of the government controlling people through
the use of grammar. And in fact, I think that comes from one place and one place only, and
that is from the work of a conspiracy theorist in Milwaukee by the name of David-Wynn: Miller.
I mean, that is precisely his theory.
Wynn: Miller is really mad as a hatter himself. But I mean, you know, he has a theory about
how the government types your name out in block, you know, capital letters, when you're
born, that's on your birth certificate, and they thereby enslave you.
David: Right.
Potok: And if only you write your proper name out using full colons and hyphens in a particular
order, you will, you know, rip asunder the shackles that, you know, bind you.
David: Right.
Potok: And by the way, you won't have to pay your federal taxes anymore.
David: Yeah.
Potok: So, you know, in the case of Loughner, he doesn't get into any of the details in
anything I saw, but there is this... a few references to this idea of mind control or
control of "the people" by "the government" by grammar.
And there are other things I spotted as well. I mean, one of them was, he refers in a couple
of different ways to the only real currency being currency that is backed by gold or silver.
And that's a core idea of the anti-government patriot movment, the so-called militia movements
that...
David: And separate from the idea that, in my observation, an overwhelming majority of
the ideas of calls to arms and violent rhetoric and violence as a solution to political problems
comes from the right, is there something about conservative principles and ideals versus
liberal that lends themselves more to using violence? If we can even separate that from
rhetoric itself.
Potok: Well, I mean, I suppose one could make the argument that the political right historically
tends to attack and vilify groups of people based on who they are intrinsically. So it's
not merely, you know, so it is, you know, all black people, all Jews, all gay people,
or whoever the enemy of the day is, whereas on the political left, it's really not where
those people come from, sort of what's in their genes, it's what they do, right? Are
you a capitalist oppressor, you know, maybe you need killing, or something like that.
So I think it's a different kind of violence, and the targets are selected in different
ways, and you know, my own fear would be that this killing of people for who they are sort
of intrinsically is even more heinous than murdering people because, you know, you feel
that they're oppressing other people. It seems certainly easier to justify on some level.
David: Absolutely.
Potok: You know, the other point I'd make is, you know, this is the rap from the right
right now, is that it's all the same, you know, well, you know, yes, there's been some
mean talk on the political right, but there's just as much coming from the extremist left.
David: The equivalency argument, yeah.
Potok: Yeah, this attempt to equalize everything, so let's all just sort of be nice and, you
know, hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". And I just think, without in any way trying to,
you know, shill for the left or the Democratic Party or, you know, the administration or
anything like that, I think that's... it is so obvious that that is objectively false.
I mean, I think, you know, I mean, I can find an anarchist in Seattle who has written that
President Bush should be killed and is a Nazi and so on without any problem at all. What
I cannot find is a congressman or congresswoman from the left or from the Democratic Party
that has made the kinds of statements we've seen from a number of congresspeople on the
right. So, you know, to me, the difference is sure, you can always find somebody on the
left who says something that can be, you know, sound very ugly, talk about killing people,
and so on, but these are not, you know, responsible authority figures, public figures who are
either politicians, you know, or who have radio or television audiences in the millions.
And that is common on the right.
David: Yeah. I mean, the other day, I did an interview, and in creating that balance,
the host had to go back to something Jeremiah Wright said, and I think that is, you know,
it shows how we need to... how that equivalency is being created, and it's a way that seems
dishonest to me.
Potok: Yeah, I think it is dishonest, and it just seems like a desperate attempt to,
you know, to paint this whole thing as a, you know, as Palin said, a "blood libel" of
the political right or of conservatives, which I don't think it is. I mean, I think it's
a reasonable thing for people to honestly look at this. And, you know, look, I think
you have to say up-front, yes, yes, the guy looks crazy. No, he's clearly not a sophisticated
political thinker who has a whole system of thought. And by the way, I don't think there's
anything to suggest that he has any connection with any group at all, including, you know,
that bogus report from Fox about his supposed tie to the racist group called American Renaissance.
I think there's nothing to that at all.
David: That's right.
Potok: Yes. So I don't think, you know, it's fair to describe him as sort of completely
emanating from the political right. I think it is fair to say he seems quite ill, but
to have absorbed some particular ideas from the right, and probably generally to have
absorbed just the rage against the government, which is very much a right-wing thing today.
And you know, that probably helped him select his target.
David: All right. Mark Potok, Director of the Intelligence Project at the SPLC. Thanks
so much for doing this on short notice today.
Potok: And thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.
David: All right, we'll talk to you soon. Louis, let's take a break, and we will be
back with plenty more after this. Stay tuned. www.DavidPakman.com is the website.
Announcer: The David Pakman Show at www.DavidPakman.com.
Transcript provided by Alex Wickersham. For transcription, translation, captions, and
subtitles, contact Alex at directtranslation@gmail.com.