Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Studying the Tribe

"The Tribe resists being studied, especially by those
who are wary of it."

Sobran devotes a page to Kevin MacDonald in the April Sobran's.


Kevin MacDonald, of California State University at Long Beach, has written a learned trilogy on what he calls "Judaism as an evolutionary strategy," analyzing Jewish conduct through the ages, right up to the present. Most recently he has written three penetrating essays in THE OCCIDENTAL QUARTERLY, one of them "Neoconservatism
as a Jewish Movement"; it shows the movement's roots in theTrotskyite Jewish left of yore, as well as its ancient roots in Jewish tribalism. It's a fascinating

You can't read MacDonald's work, either the imposing trilogy or his shorter essays, without feeling that such a study of Jewish influence is long overdue. He isn't accusatory; he's quite attentive to strategic differences that have divided the Jews themselves. But he does make it clear that the extreme elements among them have always had advantages over the others. Hence, for example, Ariel Sharon's ruthless Likud coalition has muscled out the Labor Party in Israel, with vigorous support from erstwhile "moderate" Jewish organizations in the Diaspora. Not long ago, those organizations appeared firmly in the Labor camp; but MacDonald explains how seemingly
unpredictable alignments arise from Jewish culture. We shouldn't have been surprised.

One quibble. I'm allergic to the word "evolutionary"; the pattern seems to me
quite conscious and intelligent, and indeed everything MacDonald adduces
confirms this: the cunning combination of group self-interest with pseudo-universalist rhetoric (liberal, conservative, Marxist, democratic, patriotic, et
cetera) designed to fool outsiders; the long and vengeful historical memory; the
use of guilt and victimhood for advantage; the severe measures of group
self-discipline. Neoconservatism is just a new application of some very old tactics.
MacDonald is telling in great detail and depth what a few brave Jews -- such as
the late Israel Shahak and, today, Israel Shamir --have tried to tell us from inside the fanatical world of Zionism.

MacDonald's reward for his labors has been predictable. He has been smeared as anti-Semitic, and some Jews have tried to get him fired from his university and ostracized in academia. Even to describe and analyze organized Jewish behavior,however objectively, is to be an enemy deserving destruction. Accurately
quoting Jewish sources themselves, from the Talmud to recent publications, only makes the offense worse!

Everyone knows this is a subject protected by profound taboos; indeed the mere mention of those taboos is an offense. The taboos themselves, in other words, force us to pretend that there are no taboos, as MacDonald has found. The relevant Jewish powers -- the Tribe, as I call them (to distinguish them from independent Jews) -- insist that they favor complete freedom of speech, and woe to him who says otherwise. In fact it's not always wise to observe that those powers exist, even though politicians, journalists, churchmen, and other influential people constantly kowtow to them.

No other topic requires such mental and verbal contortions in order to avoid ugly, and damaging, accusations. The Tribe resists being studied, especially by those who are wary of it. Even wariness is anti-Semitic, you know -- though the Tribe wants to be feared. It's striking how freely the Christian Right can be discussed in public, while Jewish power may be alluded to only in euphemisms. The difference is especially startling when you consider the relative numbers of Christians and Jews.

The rules of this game are head-spinning. Kafka and Orwell might have collaborated on them. Except, of course, that they're unwritten, and must remain so.

Just as the Talmud says that no Gentile may study the Law, to formulate the rules is to violate them. You can't win. Not if you're a Gentile, anyway. That's really the whole point of the game. No wonder the Tribe is winning.

If you're so much as accused of anti-Semitism, you lose. And what's the penalty for making false charges of anti-Semitism? There is none. There is no such thing as a false charge of it; to be accused is to be guilty. If nothing else, you're guilty of having been accused.

The neoconservatives have used, without compunction, every trick in their
very old book to defeat and destroy the few traditional conservatives who have
resisted their takeover of what is still called the "conservative movement."
After accusing his own dead father of anti-Semitism, Bill Buckley virtually
deeded the whole movement over to the neocons.

Zionist power has long controlled the American Congress. Today the neocons
have gained nearly total control of the executive branch too. After all, the
United States is fighting Israel's enemies, and may soon be fighting two more:
Syria and Iran.

The neocons have succeeded almost too well: Their success has gotten them
more media attention than they probably wanted -- much of it critical, in a
guarded (given the taboos) way. More and more Americans now know what a "neocon" is
and don't need MacDonald to tell them that the neocons are a specifically
Jewish and Zionist movement. (Some of my old friends in the Midwest are a lot
less naive about this than they used to be.)

Some neocons, uneasy at their recent exposure, have in effect tried to go underground: They deny that there's even such a thing as a "neoconservative." The word, they say, is an anti-Semitic codeword for "Jew." Have they already forgotten that it was once their own codeword?


Post a Comment

<< Home