The Paleocon anti-Semitic Complex

On the basis of new information, I said last night something I had never said before—that the reason Peter Brimelow has persisted all these years, despite so much protest from his readers, in publishing Paul Craig Roberts’s depraved, hate-filled columns was not (as he had told some readers) because he had a personal debt to Roberts and couldn’t “hurt” the poor old fellow, and it was not (as he had told other readers) because he had paid for Roberts’s syndicated columns and therefore had “no choice” but to publish everything Roberts wrote, the demented garbage along with the more reasonable pieces. No. The reason is much simpler and less counterintuitive than that, and it has been staring us in the face all this time. Brimelow publishes Roberts’s depraved, hate-filled columns because he likes them.

Now a reader with inside connections offers further information on the shared belief of Richard Spencer, Richard Hoste, and Peter Brimelow in the ideas of Kevin MacDonald.

UPDATE: In an exchange with a commenter who says that it is not correct to equate Roberts, who is not an ideological anti-Semite, with Hoste and Kevin MacDonald, who are, I explain what I mean by “Paleocon anti-Semitic Complex.” Since my comment directly connects with this entry, I am copying the relevant part of it here.

I wrote:

These people, like the members of any group, have different views and do not all fit into the same mold. They have a mix of views with sufficient overlap that they form a working ideological faction. The title of an entry I posted tonight, “The Paleocon anti-Semitic complex,” conveys that idea. It’s a complex, not a simple unity. Some of the members of the complex are merely anti-neocon. Some are anti-Israel. Some are outright anti-Semitic. What do these three views have in common? Opposition to people and entities that are identifiably Jewish. While not all members of the complex are anti-Semitic, opposition to Jews, and thus, ultimately, anti-Semitism, is the cement that holds the various parts of the complex together, and is even its ruling principle. This is shown by group’s tacit hierarchical order, in which the members of the complex who are anti-Semitic are never criticized by other members for their anti-Semitism, while the members of the complex who are not anti-Semitic tacitly accept the anti-Semitism of their colleagues and don’t complain about it, or at least they don’t seriously do so. In many cases the non-anti-Semites defend their anti-Semitic confreres from the charge of being anti-Semitic. It would appear then that a minimal requirement for membership in the complex is, in descending order of activism, at least one of the following: (a) active defense of anti-Semitic members from the charge of anti-Semitism; (b) deference to anti-Semitic members and their anti-Semitism; or (c) silent non-criticism of anti-Semitic members and their anti-Semitism. While active support for, or at least silent non-criticism of, anti-Semitic members is a required condition of membership in the complex, criticism of members’ anti-Semitism is prohibited, and marks an individual as a non-member of the complex.

Anti-Semitism is thus the organizing idea of the Paleocon anti-Semitic Complex, affecting and controlling even those members who are not themselves anti-Semitic.

- end of initial entry -

Michael P. writes:

As near as I can tell the “Jewish” question has always been problematic with conservatives. A curiosity (at least one curiosity) with many “anti-Israel” folks is their naive notion that if it were not for Israel, our Middle East problem (that is, our Muslim problem) would be, if not fixed, at least significantly moderated. I’ve never understood this idea, and must attribute it to what my wife, with her non-native but playful use of English, calls “willing-thinking.” Can naivete explain it? After all, many of these type are not stupid people. Yet it is surprising that no one wants to mention Russia (a country with a very anti-Semitic history), China (most recently Xinjaing Uygur), Thailand, the Philippines, India, Pakistan and so forth, as if anyone can explain the “pro Jewish” history of these countries. If they considered the world-wide problem, they would have to conclude that the nature of Islamic violence does not have its genesis in the Jew, but, rather, is intrinsic to Islam.

At the same time, from a practical standpoint it is not clear what “support for Israel” means; at least in any generic sense. Only specifics matter. U.S. aid (to both Jew and Arab) has done nothing to promote ME peace. Indeed, it is not clear to me that the notion of ME peace is anything but the magical play of words on people’s thinking. It is as if people somehow believe that now that they understand the definition of the word “peace,” it must necessarily have a physical counterpart in the world and therefore be applicable everywhere.

Finally, there are grounds for thinking that if the U.S. had never been involved in ME meddling, Jew and Arab would have had to, by necessity, taken care of the problem by now. One way or the other. Perhaps some believe this idea naive. However I suspect it to be a more realistic “what if” than hoping and praying for a peace between two incommensurate people.

April 21, 8 p.m.

Ron L. writes:

While there are many good paleoconservatives, far too many are just off the deep end on Israel and Jews. Often the only consistency in their ideology is opposition to anything neocons support as well as a grievance politics based on anger to Israel and Jews that sadly parallels that of liberal Jews towards WASPS or Westerners as a whole.

The simple fact is that between 2000 and 2008, paleoconservatives spent more time attacking Israel and hoping for U.S. defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan than in defending America’s culture. In The American Conservative immigration took a back seat to forging an alliance with the left on the war. This culminated with support for Kerry and Nader in 2004. In 2006 and then 2008, they promised us that electing Democrats would bring in conservative Democrats. Yet these “Conservative Democrats” voted like leftists, just using different language. The ultimate derangement award goes to Paul Craig Roberts, who infamously said: “If I could rid America of neoconservatives, I would accept the entire population of Mexico.”

I don’t know if the funding problems of comes from the publishing of articles on foreign policy. It does seem like a silly idea for a website supposedly devoted to restricting immigration and rebuilding our common culture. It does nothing but create friction among people who would otherwise agree. Surely Paul Craig Robert’s aforementioned article was downright poisonous to the purported goals of Brimelow, and yet Brimelow published it.

P.S. I just asked Professor Gottfried if he would call anyone short of an annihilationist an anti-Semite.

Josh F. writes:

There seems to be this ideological mandate that says an enemy of my enemy MUST BE my friend.

Unless this faction can explain why Israel’s enemies should be their friends then their stance is somewhere in between inexplicable and anti-Israel.

James P. writes:

Josh F. writes:

There seems to be this ideological mandate that says an enemy of my enemy MUST BE my friend.

Unless this faction can explain why Israel’s enemies should be their friends then their stance is somewhere in between inexplicable and anti-Israel.

You would think the rabidly Israel-hating paleocons would actually sit down and think about what it means that their primary ally against Israel is the hard left. Paleos claim to want to put America’s interests before those of Israel, and some paleos claim to want to put the interests of the white race before those of the Jews. Yet the left hates America and the white race just as much as it hates Israel. Seems obvious to me that allowing the left to achieve its objectives—including the destruction of Israel—axiomatically hurts America and the white race.* The left, at least, is smart enough to know that Israel is a key American ally—as they would put it, an “Outpost of American Empire”—and thus destroying Israel would be a devastating blow to America. Yet the paleos are too blinded by obsessive anti-Semitism to understand this.

In my view, someone who questions the basic right of Israel to exist can hardly be called “conservative” at all.

* The fall of Israel would accelerate Muslim aggression against Europe, and increase the European urge to appease Islam. This can hardly be an agreeable prospect to white nationalists.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 21, 2010 12:08 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):