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.
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.
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.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.Josh F. writes:
There seems to be this ideological mandate that says an enemy of my enemy MUST BE my friend.James P. writes:
Josh F. writes:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 21, 2010 12:08 AM | Send