A few days ago, a disgusted conservative friend sent me a link to the awful BNP hit piece by Peter Hitchens in The American Conservative. He asked me to comment on the matter. Unfortunately, nature intervened and a severe freeze in South Alabama disrupted my internet service for several days.
The article speaks for itself. Hitchens attacks the BNP from a neocon perspective: they have fascist roots, John Tyndall was a Neo-Nazi, they’re anti-Semitic, some of them deny the Holocaust, they bring the British Right into disrepute, they draw off votes from real conservatives, they are ethnonationalist, etc. Hitchens even does a little bit of chest thumping over his Jewish ancestry.
This piece of trash wouldn’t have attracted much attention if it had been published in Salon, The Weekly Standard, or The Huffington Post. Why would the leading paleoconservative magazine publish something like this though? It runs against the grain of everything Pat Buchanan has written for years now. Isn’t TAC his project?
I’ve read several comments at paleocon sites that suggest Buchanan is no longer associated with TAC. Scott McConnell is the editor. Ron Unz is the publisher. At least that’s my understanding. I haven’t been able to verify any of this.
A blogger called Bede has commented on the Hitchens article at Conservative Heritage Times. Most of the paleos over there had a similar negative reaction. This suggests there is more overlap between us than the extremists in both camps would like to admit.Follow Hunter Wallace on Gab, VK, Facebook and Twitter.