Brussels Journal, LGF, Paleocons and the Jews: Redux

I really wasn't going to write about this topic again, but apparently the Anti-Jewish and Anti-Israel article Brussels Journal linked to, which originally inspired my post was taken down by Paul Belien and then put up again

Paul Belien gave the following explanation,

Reposted
Submitted by Paul Belien on Sat, 2007-11-17 12:28.

I deleted this page from TBJ because American friends asked me to do so. Friends are under attack from Little Green Footballs (LGF) because TBJ quoted the above sentences from Paul Gottfried. Today, however, I notice that the great Charles Johnson (PBUH) himself links to the above article. Hence, the question: If Charles Johnson (PBUH) is allowed to link to this, why am I not allowed to post an interesting quote from it? Because I am a European, hence tainted with “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” “neo-Nazism,”... while Charles Johnson (PBUH) is an American hedonist?? Or because, as the fans of the great Charles Johnson (PBUH) say, this website is in the habit of posting “pieces of trash”?

The difference obviously is that I and Charles Johnson posted the link in a negative and critical way, Brussels Journal appears to be endorsing the article or at least recommending it. When calling for everyone to ignore LGF's criticism, the Pro-Brussels Journal argument was that we needed to maintain a united front against the threat of the Caliphate. Apparently that united front doesn't include Israel or the Jews, as far as Brussels Journal is concerned... and that was my point. Brussels Journal wants to be in the big tent and they want the far right to be in the tent and above criticism, but Israel and the Jews are another matter.

Posting the article itself was pointless. It really doesn't concern Islam or Europe. It simply takes a long time around to saying that Israel sorta has the right to defend itself, but along the way takes the time to assail Israel and Jews and the Holocaust. There was no real reason to do it and the comments below it cover the range from clueless to ugly.

captainchaos: So here we have it from the horse's mouth as we say here in America. In order to save the Jews from a second holocaust Jewish activists have been working for "half a century" to water down the influence of white Americans in the country that we (whites) have built so we will no longer have the power to go nuts and kill them all.

After the fighting with LGF first commenced, the BJ comments section had comments about the "neo-cons" and the need for BJ to ally with their real friends, the Paleocons. And certainly Taki finances a chunk of the folks commonly referred to as Paleocons.

The problem is that the people who most prominently call themselves that today are not really classic conservatives, as they would like to pretend. They really have very little in common with a Goldwater or a Bill Buckley. Mostly they're bigots with a special obsession involving Jews. These days from Pat Buchanan to Scott McConnell to Taki himself many of them have been embraced for their involvement in the Anti-War movement. At the end of the day they seem to feel that the biggest threat involves the Jews and seem as if they wouldn't mind America being overrun by Islam so long as it takes Israel and the Jews with it.

Not exactly the ideal allies for a united front against Islam, but then in the end Brussels Journal doesn't seem to be interested in that united front really, so much as in some sort of narrow liberation program for parts of Brussels. They can get on board with fighting Islam, so long as fighting Jewish influence and whatever other ethnicities and races they're fighting in Belgium are included, not to mention pardons for their own "patriots" who collaborated with the Nazis.

I respect honest conservatives who want to preserve their identity and culture, as long as they see what they mean up front and don't play games. What I don't like are the sly potshots. If someone hates me, I like to know where they stand up front. Since I wrote the post dropping my defense of Brussels Journal, I've had comments which defended Nazi collaboration and accused me of emotionalism. The following was my final response.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to preserve their own country. It's why I defended Brussels Journal in the first place. I do have a problem with how they go about it and with what their ideology is.

I have pointed you to the question of Degrelle which you have not addressed. I find that to be dishonest.

Factor out the Jews and Nazi Germany was profoundly evil and Nazism was profoundly evil, for everyone it touched. The murder of the mentally ill and the sick. Breeding for racial superiority. The conquest and subjugation of peoples all across Europe in favor of a master race.

Aligning with that was about real evil. The kind of real evil, liberals don't believe exists but conservatives are supposed to. Your failure to address that is symptomatic of the whitewashing of the subject that has bothered me about Brussels Journal.