Alternative Right’s anti-Semitic agenda
Two days ago, in an entry about the numerous fact-free misrepresentations of my views contained in numerous articles at Alternative Right, the new website created by Richard Spencer, I asked, “What the hell is Richard Spencer up to?”
Part of what he is up to is the promotion of serious anti-Israelism and serious anti-Semitism.
This is from a recent article at Alt-Right, “Remaking the Right Part II,” by Kevin MacDonald:
But the idea that the Jewish religion makes Jews into altruistic world-healers is an obvious non-starter, and not only because, as [Norman] Podhoretz notes, the highly religious Orthodox are less prone to liberal attitudes than the rest of the Jewish community. More decisively, even the most out of touch among us are now becoming aware that Israel is an apartheid state dominated by the most extreme religious and ethnocentric factions of the Jewish community. The Palestinians are treated brutally and are dependent on the largesse from the rest of the world.MacDonald is of course the leading proponent of Darwinian anti-Semitism, the belief that Darwinian evolution has created the Jews as a people genetically determined to subvert and destroy white gentile societies wherever they encounter them, in the same way that Darwinian evolution has created lions as an animal species genetically determined to kill and eat gazelles wherever they encounter them. MacDonald doesn’t reference his Darwinian anti-Semitism in this article, but it is there in the background. Also, some of his criticism of Jewish liberalism are correct, and are the sort of thing that any rational critic of Jews, including myself, might say and have said. But in MacDonald’s hands these statements become, not mere criticisms, but ways of expressing an unceasing animus against the Jewish people as the Jewish people, an animus that underlies and drives every sentence he writes. For MacDonald, the Jews are simply the Enemy, the source of everything that has gone wrong with the West. (See my blog entry, “Is my criticism of Jewish attitudes the same as Kevin MacDonald’s?”)
Richard Spencer has said that Alternative Right is intended to represent a new conservatism. In reality, Spencer has simply carried over some of the worst aspects of paleoconservatism, including the vicious anti-Semitism of his former boss, Taki, and combined them with paganism. He envisions a big tent. And, as is made unmistakably clear by Spencer’s publication of MacDonald’s article, a respected part of that big tent will be MacDonald-style Jew-hatred and demonization of Israel. Apart from the badness and evil of these ideas, by what delusionary thought process did Spencer imagine that anti-Semitism could be a major basis of a viable right-wing movement in this country? To whom did he think his “new,” anti-Semitic, “alternative right” would appeal, other than anti-Israelites and their fellow travelers?
And I should add that there is another effect of Spencer’s inclusion of anti-Semitism. Even for those readers who are not anti-Jewish, not anti-Israel, and have no particular interest in those issues, but care about the other subjects that Alt-Right treats, the result of publishing articles by MacDonald and other Judeo-obsessives is to normalize anti-Semitism, to make it an accepted part of the conservative coalition, so that anti-Semitism cannot be opposed. To oppose it, is to “divide the conservative ranks.” By this device, anti-Semitism becomes the norm, and opposition to anti-Semitism becomes the problem. Sort of a revaluation of all values. But, after all, another component of Spencer’s new-right mix is Nietzscheanism, isn’t it?
Here are more excerpts from MacDonald’s article. They appear on the second web page on which the article appears:
Moreover, contra Podhoretz, liberalism seems awfully compatible with Jewish self-interest. In America, both the Democratic and Republican parties are Israeli occupied territory. So it’s hard to see that Jews are being “irrational,” as Podhoretz claims, in not voting for Republicans. For rational Jews concerned only about Israel, it’s pretty much a toss-up.
In other words, Jews have been opposed to the traditional culture of America and the West and are strong advocates for the displacement of Whites via immigration.
Nevertheless, it is indeed the case that White Christians are an object of special Jewish hostility. In the Commentary symposium, Michael Medved describes Jewish atavistic phobia about Christianity as the religion of the outgroup: “Jews fear the GOP as the ‘Christian party.’” And Jewish hostility towards Christianity unites the most Orthodox and conservative Jews with the most secular and liberal.
This status of being an outsider with deep historical grudges has grave moral implications. As Benjamin Ginsberg notes, the social marginality of Eastern European Jews made them useful instruments for the imposition of Soviet rule over reluctant populations, not only in the first genocidal decades after the Bolshevik Revolution when they acted as Stalin’s “willing executioners,” but also during the post-WWII period in the USSR’s satellite states (Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, and Romania). Throughout Eastern Europe after WWII, because Jews were outsiders and dependent upon Soviet power for their positions and even personal safety, they could be trusted to remain loyal to the Soviet Union.
Tovi A. writes:
I was checking out the second part of his article, which has gotten more comments.LA replies:
How about that. More evidence of how lost Gottfried is. He will do anything, go along with anything, to remain in the paleocon swim of things.April 17, 1:00 a.m.
Dimitri K. writes:
Here is another funny example: Ukrainian nationalists burned Russian, Polish and Israeli flags. I can understand why the first two—Ukraine was once a part of (or occupied by) Russia and Poland. But why Israel? Never ever has Israel occupied any part of Ukraine.April 17, 1 p.m.
Dan R. writes:
MacDonald writes:LA replies:
But the anti-Israelites of the right have always attacked Israel in those terms. Dan says he has always been puzzled by this. With respect for Dan, does he not understand that these people are consumed by hatred of Israel and the desire to harm Israel, and that they will pick up any argument they can that they think will advance that purpose, even if it is an argument that grossly contradicts their own supposed principles?LA continues:
In order to harm Israel, the Israel haters of the right trash the very principle of majority self-preservation which they supposedly support in the case of America. They demonize Israel as racist, imperialistic, oppressive, as a criminal state, as a uniquely evil country, for (supposedly) doing the very things to its unassimilable and hostile minority that the Israel-haters want America to do to its unassimilable and hostile minorities.April 19
Carol Iannone writes:
You wrote:LA replies:
What is it that makes it anti-Semitic?Carol Iannone replies:
Hatred of Israel is so intense it supersedes other considerations, things they would normally be positive about, such as self-preservation—this is a sign that something other than reasonable disagreement is afoot.LA replies:
I agree with you. At the same time, the point is also correct that the use of a Jewish trope in attacking Israel is proof of anti-Semitism. Thus in January 2009 I said that Taki had clearly crossed the line from anti-Israelism to anti-Semitism when he wrote, “Israel is the Bernie Madoff of countries.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 16, 2010 02:32 PM | Send