2007, at the height of the battle over the comprehensive immigration reform bill, the key plank of which was the legalization of 12 million illegal aliens, Vdare, a website ostensibly devoted to immigration restriction,
That depraved utterance, and Vdare editor Peter Brimelow’s decision to publish it, proved conclusively what I have said many times, that the paleoconservatives hate the neoconservatives more than they care about the issues, such as immigration restriction, that they supposedly care about.
Note, in passing, how Spencer’s emphasis is on his “detestation” of the neocons, on personal emotions against a group rather than arguments against their positions. This is the same graveyard of the intellect in which the antiwar right buried themselves in 2001-2003, when, instead of opposing the proposed invasion of Iraq because they thought it was a
supported it, and the neocons are evil and hateful. Thus in November 2001, a couple of months before he founded the antiwar magazine
, Scott McConnell came up to me after a CIS panel discussion in New York City and told me how he couldn’t stand the neocons. From the way he spoke, it was evident he was twisted up emotionally inside. This was the impulse that gave birth to TAC and the antiwar movement itself—not belief in a position, but obsessive personal dislike of the Jewish neocons. And now, nine years later, the founder of the newest antiwar publication,
, is still speaking the same language of resentment that McConnell spoke then. The central concern of the paleocons, or Alt Rightists, or whatever it is they call themselves nowadays, is negative emotion directed at a real or imagined enemy,
the well-being of the United States and Western civilization. And furthermore, as the Alt Rightists have made undeniably clear over the last several months, the enemy at whom their animus is aimed is the Jews. They hate the Jews more than they love America.
In this connection, see the comment by Ben in the Alt Right thread who says he would be thrilled if Iran acquired nuclear weapons. Perhaps it was statements like this that John McNeil was thinking of when he said at VFR last week that Alt-Right is a “Nazi-cesspool.”
Thursday, 19 August 2010
The Zionist Conquest of the U.S. Media
By Richard Spencer
John McNeill 4 hours ago
Why should conservatives get upset? Conservatives hate the media anyway. The media can’t be trusted with domestic news. What made it have credibility on foreign affairs?
Agentklf23 4 hours ago
We need more of this kind of news. Keep’em coming, Richard!
spectator 3 hours ag
Thanks for sharing this unsurprising but important report. There will never be a mature and intelligent “alternative right” that has not taken a measured distance from Jewish disinformation in the media. This has nothing to do with what any fair-minded non-Jew would recognize as “anti-semitism.” It is simply facing facts.
Of the comments so far, O’Neill takes the cake for ignoring the true issues. Or should I say obfuscating the issues?
There will be no progress in “dialogue” with organized Jewry until people sort this sort of issue out sensibly. We can be civil, we can be measured, but we cannot afford to pretend any longer. I imagine the more solid Jews will tend to recognize this.
John McNeill 2 hours ago in reply to spectator
Who’s O’Neill? ;)
RonL 3 hours ago
KGB Agitprop on the eve of KGB Russia’s creation of a nuclear Iran.
When did you become a pink, Richard?
Or is it not appropriate to hold you to the same standards?
richardbspencer 3 hours ago in reply to RonL
This is hilarious, Ron. A friend recently joked that the Larry Auster-ites are essentially racist neocons: they dislike Blacks and Latino immigrants but then buy into the neocon worldview, kit and caboodle. You’ve proven his point.
John McNeill 2 hours ago in reply to richardbspencer
With all due respect, Richard Spencer, no. There are valid criticisms of Auster, but calling him and his followers neocons is a bit over the top. He does not call for a US invasion of Iran, or building democracy in the region. Recognizing the threat a nuclear Iran would pose and calling for US troops on the ground spreading democracy by the sword are two separate things.
RonL 2 hours ago in reply to richardbspencer
I’ve oftn joked that certain ersatz paleoconservatives such as Paul Craig “Flood the US with MExicans if it scres [screws?] neoconservatives” Roberts hate neoconservatives and/or Israel more than they love America. In so far as a nuclear Iran will lead to a nuclear race in the Middle East and a likely nucelar attack on the US, the question is, what is your priority
1. Screwing Israel, neoconservatives or liberal Jews (except the far-left of former Jews, with whom you now seem to agree)?
2. Protecting America and the city you inhabit?
PS. You do realize that virtually all Americans are Zionist in so far as they do not want Israel to be destroyed. With the exception of Stalinists, Islamists, and bittercons that’s almost everone. Hence, it is default not infiltration.
Are you going to post Communist LaRouchite videos on British takeover of American media?
richardbspencer 1 hour ago in reply to RonL
Iran does not pose a threat to America. Period. Even with Washington’s insane Israel First foreign policy.
Why do you assume Iran’s getting the Bomb will inherently lead to a nuclear attack on New York City? particularly since Washington would retaliate with hundreds of warheads? Oh, and Israel started the nuclear arms race in the Middle East, in case you forgot. (I actually think there are many Americans who don’t know that Israel has nukes.) Regardless, an Israeli and/or American attack on Iran is far more likely to launch World War III than Iran having the Bomb, as I’ve laid out in my last few blogs.
I think you’re mixing up PCR with Scott McConnell. Roberts is a long-time VDARE columnist.
At any rate, the neocons are a a far greater threat than Iran. It’s good and right to detest them. [emphasis added]
RonL 1 hour ago in reply to richardbspencer
“I think you’re mixing up PCR with Scott McConnell. Roberts is a long-time VDARE columnist. “
Scott McConnell may be a hertical believer in a Palestinian Jesus, but he never said anything as traitorous as “If I could rid America of neoconservatives, I would accept the entire population of Mexico.” http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070528_immigration …
I think that a nuclear Iran would lead to a nuclear attack on the US because it makes sense. Let’s say Iran gets nuclear weapons. Then, let’s pretend Iran is not run by suicide bomber supporter’s whose eschatology holds that the Mahdi will come only after the Muslim world is purified by fire and that the stated role of Ahmadenajhad is to bring the Mahdi. In other words we are running a scenario with an ahistorical “rational Iran”. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia and Egypt follow. Already these countries have responded to Iran’s boasts, it “civilian” nuclear program, and open ICBM program with their own “civilian” nuclear programs. Saudi Arabia home of and exporter of the Salafist Wahhabi movement and the decadent Saudi clan is a spark away from revolution. Egypt is home of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Islamic Jihad (now part of Al Qaeda), and Gamaat Islamyia (the folks who offed Nasser). Hosni Mubarak is not healthy and the dictatorial regime only slightly more so. In a few years, emboldened by American retreat from the Near East and after a string of “conventional” terrorist attacks, nuclear war on America, Israel and Europe become rational. An attack though proxy is hard to trace and the regime in Tehran or an Islamist one in Cairo could easily decide that given their ability to r4espond, the destruction of Middle East oil facilities in a war, and the difficulty in proving culpability, the US may not respond with nuclear war.
This may sound far fetched, but is it any less rational than the belief of Japanese militarists that they could cripple our fleet in a surprise attack, and then conquer and secure most of the Pacific rim to such a degree that the US would enter peace negotiations in 1942?
And this is assuming rational actors, not the Jihadis in Tehran.
richardbspencer 1 hour ago in reply to RonL
This is exceedingly far-fetched, Ron, and relies on a series of assumptions.
Let’s put things starkly: Attacking Iran now will likely lead to WWIII. Even if the Israeli and/or American attack were “limited” and “surgical,” there is no way that Iran would just sit back and take it and not engage in massive retaliation with conventional weapons.
So, in order to prevent some unlikely scenario dreamed up at the American Enterprise Institute from occurring, you want to perform an action that will almost invariably lead to a regional and maybe even a global conflict.
It’s because so many neocons in high places think like this that people like PCR say things that sound outlandish.
Mexican immigrants could be returned to their country later on. The damage inflicted by neocons lasts forever.
Put simply, the neocons are far, far, FAR worse than Mexican immigrants. [emphasis added]
RonL 49 minutes ago in reply to richardbspencer
Why would this lead to World War III? Putin wants to weaken the US, dominate the old Soviet Empire, and divide Caspain energy reserves with Iran. He is not going to risk Moscow to protect the Islamist regime in Iran. China wants a weakened US and the ability to gain influence in Central Asia and Africa. It might risk war over Taiwan, but not Tehran.
The US could easily destroy Iran’s nucelar program, military, and Revolutionary guards. Would there be ugly reprocussions and a temporary oil shock? Yes. But how would a war against a nuclear Iran be prettier?
And which element of my scenario is unlikely?
Is it unstable regimes building nuclear weapons in response to the Iranian one? That’s happening today.
Is it the theory that Iran or an element in an unstable regime might provide nuclear weapons to terrorists to attack the US?
Is it that given the difficulty in proving the source of an attack, the US would be less willing to respond with overwelming destruction?
Is it the idea that even if we find this lack of deterrence unlikely, a local ruler may gamble with it? (It’s not like regional dictators have a great record in thinking they can bluff the US. It seems an endemic machismo for Arabs.)
RonL 1 hour ago in reply to richardbspencer
Puerile mutual accusations aside, how is http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html seperationism neoconservative? It doesn’t call for forcing them to become liberals by use of force.
Ben 3 hours ago in reply to RonL
I think a lot of people here, myself included, would be thrilled if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. If there is one thing history has taught us, if every sovereign country on earth had nuclear weapons, globalist wars of aggression would end.
E.B. Wolf 2 hours ago
And this is a revelation to who exactly? I can’t believe I’m borrowing a quote from Don King of all people, but “only in America,” is this news.
TS1709 1 hour ago
Virtually all nations have some sort of public relations operations present in the United States and Israel is no exception. For example, I could not even begin to guess what Saudi Arabia, Japan, and China spend each year. By the way, have you heard anything bad about the Saudis lately in the MSM lately, I think not??
AIPAC is not all powerful as they have yet to unseat Rep. Jim Moran, D. Virginia for example who has been highly critical of Israel. And who the heck reads the Atlantic magazine anymore but a bunch of old coots??? Obviously, AIPAC is an aggressive organization but so are most of the lobbying organizations that stalk the halls of our government.
My point is that this obsession with Israel by some in the alternative right who are its detractors is a waste of resources. I can think of many other important issues that are more critical such as the building of the “stick in it your face” mosque adjacent to the WTC site. Considering I just saw Grover Norquist and Michael Gerson (both … conservatives??) on CNN groveling up to the idea perhaps we should be doing some articles on them rather than Israel’s PR budget.
86thandPark 26 minutes ago in reply to TS1709
I think Israel lobbying the United States to bomb Iran, and, yes, start WWIII, is a bit more critical than the ground zero mosque which is nothing but an ethnic turf-war between the arabs and jews with the 9/11 victim families being used as pawns.
Aaron 6 minutes ago in reply to TS1709
The Israeli propaganda under discussion occurred in 1960 and 1961, when these old coots were still young.
Thomas O. MMeehan 1 hour ago
Richard, thanks for passing this along. Can you publish a web source for downloading the document in question? This would be very helpful.
It is worth saying that RT is as biased as Israeli media. But good information passed along for questionable reasons is still good information.
richardbspencer 58 minutes ago in reply to Thomas O. MMeehan