roberts is a right wing white supremacist who has written repeatedly anti-disability, anti-jewish, anti-gay, anti-immigrant anti- people of color, rants for years. (and while attempting to be "pro-islam, pro-arab", his assertions are rife with orientalist assumptions of amerikan/western superiority.) his critique of u.s./israeli policy is not part of a human rights, social justice, anti-imperialist movement for self-determination or liberation, but rather is simply an extension of his white supremacist fear that white people and amerika are losing ground. 

roberts has written for years for vdare (a racist publication, named for virginia dare, the first "white" baby to be born in the "new world"), but recently he has been published, without criticism or reference to his racist, ableist, sexist anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-jewish, anti-arab trajectory by counterpunch, ifamericansknew, antiwar.com, democracy now, information clearing house, alternet and other "progressive" media. 

in his article "why does israel want to initiate war between the u.s. and iran?" (1) roberts repeats what we’ve been hearing for years: that israel wants to drag the u.s into war with iran, or that israel will bomb iran on its own. we’ve heard this from the left, the right, and from two vice presidents. and yet– no war. (sanctions, defamations, pressure, but no war!) does this mean that the tail doesn’t wag the dog, as has been suggested? after all, if israel has really wanted the u.s to go to war, or if israel really wants to bomb iran, if israel really did run the show, wouldn’t this have happened years ago?

on the other hand, is it possible that israel is less interested than we’ve been led to believe and that the threat of an israeli caused war, is part of the illusion the u.s. and israel have been manufacturing for some time– the idea that israel is responsible for u.s. foreign policy– taking the focus off of the u.s. and its global empire, while simultaneously making israel seem much more powerful than it really is. – a mutually beneficial illusion. 

in his article "the end of free speech? criminalizing criticism of israel", (2) roberts attacks a hate crimes bill that extends violent hate crimes protection to lgbt people and people with dis-abilities. he asserts that this new bill would make any criticism of israel and the holocaust, illegal, contrary to ANY reading of the bill, which says absolutely nothing about israel and has no impact at all on speech. 

in his article " muslims are their own worst enemy" (3) he repeats tired orientalist stereotypes, blames the victims of u.s. (and british and russian imperialism) for their own condition "muslim disunity has made it possible for israel to dispossess the palestinians, for the u.s.. to invade iraq, and for the u.s.. to rule much of the region…" 

in his memoriam to milton friedman, (4) the architect of some of the most deadly economic policies of the twentieth century, he calls friedman the "great economist of our times."

in his article "that buchanan book" (5) he repeats and embellishes buchanon’s attacks on immigrants, multiculturalism, people of color people with dis-abilities and the left.

"buchanan has strong opinions, but his opinions are based in facts, unlike his equally opinionated opponents, who have bought into the multiculturalist dogma of the evils of western civilization or taken refuge in neoconservative wishful thinking."

he states, "whites are shrinking into a minority even within their own countries. massive uncontrolled legal and illegal immigration, together with collapsing fertility rates of whites everywhere, foretell a vanishing race." as if it’s a bad thing.

(seriously though,  the disappearance of any culture or group is NEVER  a good thing, but the construct of whiteness (including his unstated inference to race mixing as further diluting this vanishing breed) isn’t about the preservation of a culture, but the total assimilation of several distinct and disparate languages, heritages, histories and legacies which are swallowed up into a homogenized identity in the interest of empire and domination–for those who qualify, whiteness is the price of losing who you are.) 
he goes on to assert that the situation may be worse than buchanan would have us think: "in the u.s. native-born whites already are second-class citizens in their own country. unconstitutional group privileges have arisen based on race, gender, and disability. white males no longer have equal rights. "

he concludes this article; "demonization of whites is the weapon used by multiculturalists to breakup western civilization… demonization has already demoralized some whites, making them ashamed and fearful of their skin color."

"by the time whites become political minorities, decades of demonization will have prepared the ground for legislation prohibiting their propagation and, perhaps, assigning them to the gulag as a final solution … none of this is ordained. faculties could replace multicultural propagandists with real scholars, and legislation could halt or reduce immigration to assimilable numbers. is western civilization worth the effort? does anyone any longer know what western civilization is? "

so how come roberts is getting so much play among progressives, including the progressive press, given his history of bigotry and intolerance, as well as having "served" on reagan’s cabinet as treasury sect (making his essay "the rich have stolen the economy", a bit absurd)? 
could it be that his white supremacist positions, including the assertion of a zionist occupied amerikan government, run by foreign israeli interlopers, tricksters, puppeteers, as well as an entire ethnic group of u.s. citizens with suspicious national allegiance, absolves white (and otherwise privileged) amerikans of their (real and mis-afilliated) guilt, allowing them to address injustices without ever having to examine the root causes, raise their class consciousness, or challenge their own nationalism, amerikan hubris, entitlement and arrogance. 

when i ask why "we" are promoting roberts, i am told that he has important points to make, that no one is all good or all bad, that his position in the reagan administration lends credibility to those more legitimate assertions "we all agree on". but even though a broken clock is right twice a day, and hitler made the trains run on time, do we really want, in giving credence to his "good points" to legitimize his racist, sexist, ableist bigotry and promote roberts at the expense of other writers who, though lesser known, might better articulate a vision of anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, infused justice, inclusion, diversity and self-determination? 

1. http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=133

2. http://cafeintifada.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/654/

3. http://www.vdare.com/roberts/100301_muslims.htm

4. http://www.vdare.com/roberts/061116_friedman.htm

5. http://vdare.com/roberts/west_future.htm