Throne, Altar, Liberty
The Canadian Red Ensign
Friday, October 27, 2023
Where the Hatred Comes From
Following the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, in which the terrorist organization not only unleashed the predictable barrage of largely ineffective rockets on the Jewish state, but penetrated the barrier between Gaza and Israel with a large force that killed about 1500 people and took about 150 hostage, we were treated to the disgusting spectacle of progressives gathering en masse in cities and academic campuses around the West, not to protest these despicable acts, but to cheer them on. This was immediately denounced as a display of anti-Semitism, mostly by neoconservatives many of whom called for such demonstrations to be banned. While I don’t have much better an opinion of these demonstrators than the neocons have this call to criminalize the demonstrations is extremely foolish. There is already too much suppression of the expression of thought and opinion, we do not need to add any more. I don’t agree that this is an expression of anti-Semitism either. This essay will explain why.
A discussion of this sort requires that we define anti-Semitism at some point so we might as well get that out of the way. H. L. Mencken said that “an anti-Semite is someone who dislikes the Jews more than is absolutely necessary”. That is amusing, at least to those who do not have a politically correct pole permanently lodged up their rectums, but not particularly helpful. Joe Sobran said that “an anti-Semite used to be someone who didn’t like the Jews. Now he is someone the Jews don’t like”. This is more helpful as an explanation of the neoconservative use of the term than of what it really means.
Most people, I suspect, use it to mean any dislike of the Jews for any reason. The late rabbinical scholar, Jacob Neusner, objected to this promiscuous use of the term. In an article entitled “Sorting Out Jew-Haters” that appeared in the March 1995 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture he gave this account of anti-Semitism:
According to anti-Semitism, Jews are a separate species within humanity, peculiarly wicked, responsible for the evil of the human condition. A political philosophy formulated in the world of late 19th-century Germany and Austria, anti- Semitism formed the ideological foundation of political parties and served as the basis for public policy. It provided an account of life and how the Jews corrupt it. It offered a history of Western civilization and how the Jews pervert it. It formulated a theory of the world’s future and how the Jews propose to conquer it. People make sense of the world lay appealing to anti-Semitism, and in World War II, millions of Germans willingly gave their lives for the realization of their country’s belief in an anti-Semitic ideal of national life and culture.
The term, he argued, should be reserved for Jew hatred of the type that fully meets this description, and to apply it to lesser prejudices trivializes it.
Now, you might be thinking that what we are seeing meets Neusner’s requirements to be called anti-Semitism. The rallies that we have been talking about, after all, are not just in support of the Palestinian people, but of Hamas, the terrorist organization dedicated to the elimination of Israel, and of its actions on 7 October. Why would anyone support such an organization and such behaviour unless their mind was in the grips of the sort of hatred described in the paragraph from Neusner’s article quoted above?
There are a couple of obvious problems with that way of thinking.
The first is that if these progressives, academic and otherwise, were motivated by anti-Semitic hatred we would expect that their support for violent, murderous, organizations and their behaviour would be limited to Hamas and other similar groups. This is not the case. The progressive activist crowd has a long history of supporting violent, murderous, groups. In the post-World War II era of the last century, for example, they supported every Communist group available from the Stalinists to the Maoists to Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. Communism killed 100 million people in the twentieth century. Pol Pot’s group murdered about 2 million people, a quarter of the population of Cambodia. Yet Noam Chomsky, the MIT linguistics professor who became the guru of the student activist wing of the left and who is regarded by most neoconservatives as a self-loathing Jew for his support of the Palestinians, decades ago was defending Pol Pot and claiming that the accounts of the “killing fields” were American propaganda. My old friend Reaksa Himm, whose account of seeing his family slaughtered by these brutes and being left for dead himself, was published as The Tears of My Soul: He Survived Cambodia’s Killing Fields, His Family Didn’t, Could He Forgive? in 2003, would no doubt have a few things to say about that. Then, of course, there are the countless progressive students who thought it “cool” to wear t-shirts or put posters up in their dorm room bearing the image of vile Communist terrorist and mass murderer Ernesto “Che” Guevara. So, no, this sort of stupidity on the Left, is not all about the Jews.
The second problem is that even when progressive bile is directed towards Israel as it is in these pro-Hamas demonstrations it is not against Jews qua Jews. There is an element of racial hatred in it but that racial hatred is not directed against Jews as distinct from everyone else. It is directed against Jews as white people. Some might object to that statement on the grounds that not all Jews are white, Jewishness being primarily a religious identity. Others, including some Jews who hate whites and Christians and some whites who don’t like Jews, would make the polar opposite objection that in their opinion no Jews are white. These wildly differing objections aside, my statement is nevertheless true. The hatred the immature, idiotic, Left is displaying towards Israel is the same hatred they display towards all Western countries, i.e. countries that lay claim to the heritage of Greco-Roman, Christian, white European, civilization, and to the extent that there is a racial element it is that which is on display almost ubiquitously on university campuses in the form of the claim that “whiteness” is a cultural and civilizational cancer that must be “abolished”. The language used against Israel is the same language used against Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and basically any country and society settled and built by Europeans as an extension of Western civilization. The only difference is that in this case the settlers were Jews rather than Christians.
It is not therefore a case of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism and its counterpart Zionism began around the same time in the nineteenth century. Both were the result of “Enlightenment” philosophy’s war against God, revelation, religion and faith. For centuries Christians and Jews had been at odds over a religious issue. We, rightly, believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. They, wrongly, reject Jesus as the Christ. This was not an insurmountable divide. Any Jew could become a Christian by believing that Jesus is the Christ and being baptized into the Church. The “Enlightenment” brought about a loss of faith on both sides but this did not eliminate the divide. Instead, post-Christian Gentiles and secular Jews began to regard their division as being based on biological racial differences. Division on this basis is insurmountable. You cannot change your race. At least, you couldn’t until the whole “I’m whatever gender, sex, race, species, I want to be” garbage started up in the last few years. The expression of this idea of an insurmountable race divide was anti-Semitism on the part of post-Christian Gentile Europeans and Zionism on the part of secular Jews. In the early days of both movements they supported each other. Each believed that the racial differences between Jew and Gentile prevented them from living in peace together, therefore the solution was for them to live in peace apart. Whatever else might be said about this way of thinking it is clear that the animosity directed towards the Jews of Israel on the part of the pro-Hamas progressive demonstrators is not this anti-Semitism. It is based, indeed, on the very opposite concept – that the Jews are fundamentally one with other Western Europeans rather than being fundamentally divided from them by race or even religion.
Just in case you mistake this as an attempt to white-wash the progressives, let me assure you my intention is quite the reverse. The progressives’ anti-Israel position arises out of a far more pernicious attitude than mere anti-Semitism. It arises out of the hatred that is at the very heart of leftism.
The Left is the openly revolutionary form of liberalism. Sometimes liberalism tries to hide its revolutionary nature behind a mask of reform, of working within the institutions of civilization to accomplish its goals, but when that mask is removed what you get is the Left. The Left, therefore, is the true face of liberalism, and that face is one of revolution and sedition. Liberalism is not a constructive force but a destructive force. In its earliest recognizable form it began as an attack on Christendom or Christian civilization, the heir to classical Greco-Roman civilization. Its first targets were kings who are the earthly political representatives of the King of Kings Who rules over all of Creation, and the Church, the corporate body of Jesus Christ in which His Incarnational presence is sacramentally continued after His Ascension to the right hand of the Father. In attacking God’s earthly representation in this way liberalism revealed that its ultimate hatred is of God Himself. Liberalism is essentially the earthly continuation of Satan’s revolt against God. After attacking king and Church, liberalism launched its siege on every other tradition and institution of Christian civilization. From what we have just seen about liberalism’s essential nature its hatred of civilization is entirely explicable. Liberalism hates kings because they are the earthly representation of God’s Sovereign rule over Creation. Liberalism hates the Church because the Church is the earthly representation of Christ’s priestly intercession in Heaven. Liberalism hates civilization because civilization is the product of man as builder and it is in his capacity as builder that man most displays the image in which man was created, the image of God the Creator.
That is the hatred that is on display whenever the progressive Left blithers on and on about “colonialism” and “imperialism”. Man, in his fallen estate, is incapable of building a perfect civilization. Imperfect civilization, however, is better than no civilization at all. The Left is no more capable of building a perfect civilization than the builders of the past it is always decrying, sometimes for their real sins but more often for new offences they just made up yesterday, and the Left is not interested in trying to build a perfect civilization. It is only interested in tearing down the civilization others have built. It claims to be speaking out for “victims”. Sometimes the “victims” are people who have suffered actual harm in some way from civilization building. Other times, they are merely those who have not shared equally in the benefits of civilization with others. Either way, the Left’s idea that civilization must be razed, its history erased, and its builders “cancelled” and defamed is hardly the answer and in the support they are now showing for the despicable acts of murderous terrorists they show that their motivation is not genuine concern for those who have not fared as well from civilization as others, but a Satanic hatred of civilization builders, for representing, even in an imperfect way, the image of the Creator God.
That is a far more vile form of hatred than the extremely banal one of which the neoconservatives are accusing them. Posted by Gerry T. Neal a