If readers haven’t had enough of the Jewish question, they may peruse
thread at Age of Treason, wherein M. Traven, Jewish Atheist, and I form
an informal Jew Force and take on the
(I find an excellent test for these people is asking them to explain the
Altalena affair. Please post your responses to the thread above—not here. There really
is such a thing as too much.)
I’m fascinated by the mind of the modern anti-Semite. While the story of
the 20th century as a Jewish conspiracy is basically crazy, it is no
crazier than many present-day beliefs that are considered normal and
even fashionable. To be exact, the MacDonaldists attribute exactly the
same pattern of behavior to Jews that folks like
O’Connell attribute to whites. The likes of Tanstaafl, NeoNietzsche,
and Colin Laney certainly feel—quite genuinely, I’m sure—that they
are having a “courageous conversation” about Jewish privilege.
The problem with the Jack McConnell theory of the world is that if there
is anywhere in the US where white people feel it is socially acceptable
to suggest that white people should cooperate on the basis of their
shared whiteness, it is certainly not in the circles of power and
privilege. Unless cell block D at San Quentin counts as such. And the
same is true for Jews: while there are
Jewish communities in the US, these are not exactly the people who run
the New York Times. To say the least!
So to talk about modern, American white or Jewish ethnocentrism, without
giving anyone the impression that you live on a different planet from
the rest of us, you have to resort to the language of conspiracy theory. The motives of your enemies are either concealed, unconscious, or both. The more white people deny that they are racist, the more likely they
are to be racist. And so on.
Not that I have read his entire oeuvre. But Kevin MacDonald strikes me
as no more interested in actual Jews and what they actually think, than
Jack O’Connell is in actual white people and what they actually think. Instead, both these factions invest a vast quantity of effort in
constructing historical or anecdotal narratives which are not
inconsistent with the premise of widespread white racism or Jewish
ethnocentrism. They take it for granted that whites or Jews aren’t just
telling us what they actually think.
Whereas I know that black nationalism is quite common in the US, because
you see it
all over the
place, even among the
African-Americans. Afrocentrism is quite fashionable. And not just among
black people. If this were to change—if I were to see black Americans
everywhere condemning Afrocentrism, denying they had ever even
giving their children names like “Ethan” and “Catherine” and
“James,” etc., etc., I would conclude that black nationalism was
indeed on the wane.
Rather than having gone underground and morphed into a more sinister and
devious form. Because secrets just don’t scale. And as for the Jungian
racial collective unconscious, it simply does not exist—enchanted as I
am by the sheer breathtaking weirdness of
So I’m not at all surprised to find that the MacDonaldists are Noam
Chomsky fans. It may seem incongruous, but there is a genuine shared
perspective there. If only we could get them in the same room together.
The real tragedy is that anti-Semitism is not only a misinterpretation
of history and reality, but (unlike black nationalism) a profoundly
unfashionable one. Reviled, in fact, in all polite society.
If we cared what polite society thought, we would not be here at UR. I
hold no brief at all for fashionable opinion. The problem with adopting
unfashionable opinions, however, is that you really do need to be damn
sure you’re right.
When your opinions are both unfashionable and inaccurate—and when they
hold no real promise of serving as a rallying point for a mob—they are
unlikely to get you anywhere. Worse, adopting a worldview like
anti-Semitism is such a drastic and terrible step, it is so socially and
intellectually isolating, that stepping back out of it is almost
impossible. If anything, it demands even more courage and conviction
than getting in in the first place.
Anyway, I promised other links.
Frequent UR commenter George
Weinberg, whose style of thinking is remarkably similar to mine, has a
new blog. Please visit it and comment.
The great Carter van Carter, proprietor of
Country, which may well be the funniest site on the Internet, has a new
political blog, Craptocracy. Carter makes me look polite and respectful.
And if you are not amused by
post by Macro Man, or by his
devastatingly hilarious Arthur Conan Doyle takeoff
2), or by Cassandra’s
almanack, you have either no sense of humor, or no interest in finance. And if the latter, bear in mind that—to paraphrase
still be interested in you.