The Paleocon anti-Semitic Complex
(View From The Right) -- by Lawrence Auster --
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 beliefs of Richard Spencer, Richard Hoste, and Peter Brimelow.
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."
UPDATE: Since it directly connects with this entry, I am copying the relevant part of my comment 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.
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...MORE...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
Lawrence Auster, the proprietor of View From The Right, is supposedly a Jewish convert to Christianity. However, given his preoccupation with anti-Semitism, either the conversion didn't take, or he actually converted to dispensationalism, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the teachings and philosophy of Jesus Christ in world view, outlook, or ethos.
The question that should be put to any Jew who "converts" to dispensationalism is: "Why bother?" The question that should be put to any Christian who embraces dispensationalism is: "Shouldn't you just convert to Judaism?"
"I was never fully American. I was Jewish."
(You Tube) -- posted by MossadDid911...LINK
Post a Comment