The Jewish Question, Answered

critiqueFor anyone with a limited understanding of Jewish history and a grudge against the Jews, MacDonald’s thesis that Jews are driven by “ethnic interest” is the equivalent of the Grand Unified Theory in physics. Accordingly, he has a cult-like following who reason that his ideas must be promulgated by any means. So, it must have come as a shock that Oxfordian Nathan Cofnas pointed out contradictions and cherry-picking of sources in MacDonald’s work.

I. Flawed intellectual constructs

If we analyze where MacDonald’s ethnic interest theory went wrong, perhaps we could get a better understanding of the “Jewish Question.”

A. Israeli politics are the most polarized in the developed world. Contemporary Jews are riven with sectarianism and therefore are the antithesis of a group evolutionary interest.

B. The bête noir of MacDonald’s paradigm, ethno-centric Jews, are, in actuality, Orthodox Jews, who may even be more “pro-White” than Whites are.

C. MacDonald spent a book defining Orthodox Jewry as an evolutionary strategy. Indeed, the population of Ashkenazi Jews in Europe increased from 1,000 to 9 million from 1000 AD to 1933. Yet, the Jewish Left is a counter-reaction to this yoke of the Torah that enabled “history’s greatest survivors”; i.e., the Jewish Left is an anti-evolutionary strategy akin to the Shakers.

D. Secular Jews don’t have many children, out-marry, and agitate provocatively against traditional values (both Jewish and Christian). As Leftists gained hegemony, the number of Jews in Europe declined from 9.5 to 1.4 million. Similarly, the Jewish population in the United States has experienced a relative decline of nearly 50% since 1955.

E. The Jewish Left’s activism produces a predictable blowback of anti-Semitism, leading to such consequences as the Holocaust and today’s AltRight. The Jewish Left’s peculiar death drive extends to making common cause with Jewry’s existential enemies, like the Palestinians, Iran, and Hezbollah, and giving nuclear secrets to Stalin, who would target the surviving post-war Jewish community of New York City. So, rather than acting in any coherent evolutionary strategy, the Jewish Left has repeatedly endangered the survival of Jewry.

MacDonald’s ethno-centric thesis seems reasonable enough, and it even may work when applied to traditional Jewry. Yet, why does it fail when applied to left-wing Jews?  This essay will present a parallel thesis to that presented by Moldbug:

The “ultracalvinist hypothesis” is the proposition that the present-day belief system commonly called “progressive,” “multiculturalist,” “universalist,” “liberal,” “politically correct,” etc, is actually best considered as a sect of Christianity.

Similarly, the Jewish secular Left appears to be acting as rival sect causing in-group conflict with right-wing Jewry. Maybe Jews do operate in a group evolutionary strategy at certain times and on some level as MacDonald describes, but in a climate of sectarian conflict this is hardly a useful analytical paradigm because sectarian interests will constantly intercede. Indeed, while MacDonald admits his paradigm does not have predictive abilities, the sectarian paradigm presented in this essay does.

In the last 30 seconds of this video, Ben Shapiro goes beyond statistics and delves into the red pill: the Jewish Left is distinctively hostile to traditional biblical values. (Watch the entire video for a full background on the Orthodox/secular Jewish contrast).

In an extraordinary coincidence, none of the Jewish radicals in Culture of Critique are Orthodox. Yet, MacDonald dismisses Jewish theology as merely “protective clothing” for group interests. Reformed Judaism is a “semi-crypsis” “mission to gentiles” in a form of grand scheme. He describes Jewry as acting like a collective fleet of ships with individual ships pursuing different strategies (but with the same goal). Yet, he provides no evidence of what inter-denominational (i.e. ethnic interest) force could be the admiral guiding these “ships”; MacDonald is resorting to teleological reasoning with no underlying mechanism.

MacDonald has stated that a refutation of his work would need to show that Jewish intellectuals were not motivated by Jewish interest or that his historical narratives were false. Thus, if it could be shown that Jewish intellectuals were sectarian in motivation, it would refute his theory since sectarian interests are distinct from and often trump ethnic ones. Further, this essay will refute the five most important AltRight narratives: Jewish ethno-centrism is historically static, the Russian Revolution, the Holocaust, Jewish support of immigration, and the Iraq War.

II. Improper ethnography

MacDonald extensively sources his work, but he conducts little field work with Jews, violating the best practices of ethnography. Consequently, he leaves himself open to observation bias.

Right-wing Jews are reticent to express their hostility of left-wing Jews because of Lashon Ha-Ra and Chilul Hashem. Further, many leftist Jews have qualms that insulting fellow Jews could feed into a climate of anti-Semitism. As a result, an outside observer would mistakenly assume that Jewish sectarian disputes are minimal.

What do right-wing Jews actually think of their left-wing co-ethnics?

Of course, the rest of us know that these too-educated glib leaders are the eternal Jewish ‘luftmenschen’ who have always plagued our communities; ungrounded, heads in the air, they believe their own words are a substitute for the hard work people perform to earn a living.
We have known them forever. They are our family members and friends who were socialists, communists, union organizers, deacons in the church of black civil rights, anti-war protesters, and now members of the army of Jews working in our communal organizations.
And we are weary of their endless lectures and rants, and particularly of their juvenile spouting about morality and justice.

III. Early Jewish Leftist Sectarians

MacDonald largely omits the influential early figures of the Jewish Left who were persecuted by the Jewish Right:

1. Spinoza (1626-1677) was excommunicated by the Amsterdam Jewish community. Spinoza is commonly regarded as the top enlightenment philosopher.Portrait_of_Shabtai_Tzvi

2. Sabbati Zevi (1626-1676) was a false messiah who led a mass movement of Jews to reject the traditional rabbinical order. Zevi’s message was the exact opposite of traditional Torah values: what is holy, unholy; unholy, holy. He was ultimately rejected by the Rabbinate of Jerusalem and then taken to the Turks and forced to convert to Islam. According to Gershom Scholem, Sabbati Zevi was the intellectual inspiration for Reform Judaism.

jacob-frank-c1726-1791-granger3. Jacob Frank (1726-1791) claimed to be the reincarnation of Zevi. Gershom Scholem described: “Frank will always be remembered as one of the most frightening phenomena in the whole of Jewish history.” Frank promoted ideas like sexual decadence, feminism, communism, and Zionism. He even had a coterie of female bodyguards, like Gaddafi, and engaged in ritualized orgies. Frank appears to have been the first major modern feminist, including insisting on a female Moshiach.

Frank tricked Christian rulers and bishops into supporting his degenerate movement. He promoted blood libel and encouraged the burning of Talmuds.

lossy-page1-418px-chacham_tzvi_largeFrank entered into a confrontation with Rabbi Yahhkov Emden. Emden was an inquisitor of Sabbateans, like his father before him, and his great-grandfather had summoned the Golem of Prague. Emden and Christian authorities ultimately forced Frank’s movement largely underground.

Rabbi Emden wrote a Christian apologia, remarkable in Jewish history, and even attempted to warn Christendom about the apocalyptic nature of the Sabbateans:

For it is recognized that also the Nazarene and his disciples, especially Paul, warned concerning the Torah of the Israelites, to which all the circumcised are tied. And if they are truly Christians, they will observe their faith with truth, and not allow within their boundary this new unfit Messiah Shabbetai Zevi who came to destroy the Earth.

With the arrival of these Jewish leftists, the dynamic of Jewish history changes from MacDonald’s conception of static ethno-centrism to one of constant internal strife.  Further, Jews will reach out to like-minded gentile groups in their sectarian struggle.

IV. Zionism and Leftist Sectarianism

Zionists were infatuated with Sabbatai Zevi and Frank, inspired by their heresy, their messianism and their subversion of rabbinic authority.
The Heresy we Forgot

Horace Kallen was the inventor of multiculturalism, an influential Zionist, and another character in The Culture of Critique described as ethno-centric, yet, like the intellectuals listed above, he seemed to hold an obsession with defiling traditional Judaism. Kallen’s Zionism was to provide a form of rival secular religion; he insisted on holding meetings of his Zionist group during the Sabbath (violating the 4th commandment).

Kallen’s leadership, particularly his neglect of Jewish tradition, irritated some members of the Parushim; they resented, for instance, his calling meetings for the Jewish Sabbath. “Since I understand that ours is not a separatist Order in the sense that it does not exclude any Jew who has proved his complete devotion to the Zionist cause,” wrote Jesse Sampter, “it would be unkind, unfair and unjust to call a meeting at this particular time [Friday evening].”

In addition to Kallen, Israel Zangwill was another advocate for immigration. He wrote The Melting Pot and was the first proponent of Islamic immigration. Similarly to Kallen, Zangwill wrote in support of Sabbati Zevi’s heresy and sexual subversion. Interestingly, here’s a sectarian bloodsport between Zangwill and a more traditionalist Jewish contemporary.

Labor Zionists, like Kallen and Zangwill, often believed that: More than the Jewish People have kept the Sabbath, the Sabbath has kept the Jews. So, they viewed the Sabbath as a peculiarity of Diaspora Jews to maintain their distinct identity. If you wanted to get rid of the Sabbath, then get Jews out of the Diaspora and into Israel. Further, if radical secularists controlled Jerusalem, they would have weight over all of Jewry; it was the Rabbinate of Jerusalem that rebuked Sabbati Zevi.

According to this plan, Israel was to be a far left-wing social democracy. Early Israeli Zionists often lived in secularized communist-style Kibbutzim that were reputedly “hot houses” of sexual libertines. Yet, what followed was one of the most astonishing reversals of fortune, ever.

As Stalin realized, the formation of Israel shifted formerly communist Jews into nationalists. Further, the popularity of Religious Zionism, a hybrid of Zionism and Orthodox Judaism, began to steadily increase in the 1950s and thereafter. So, Israel became a nation of Jewish paladins, replacing the Knights Templar as defenders of the Holy Land.tank

V. Leftist sectarians now oppose Israel

Given that Israel is now an anti-Islamist exemplar, increasing Leftist Jewish opposition fits within the far left’s quasi-Jihadi trend. About 20% of BDS members on campus are Jewish. Views on Israel are widely polarized with secular Jews being over six times more likely to support a fully-democratic Israel than religious Jews. This implies they would support Israel ceasing to be a Jewish state if it lost a Jewish plurality.

Nathan Cofnas pointed out that many of the intellectuals in Culture of Critique seemed to be opposed to Israel. This seemingly “self-hating” Jewish support of the Palestinian cause even extends to that institutional epicenter of “Jewish intellectual movements,” Columbia University. Professor Edward Said was the strongest intellectual advocate Palestinian cause and had a protégé in Barack Obama. Indeed, history may prove Said to have been the most influential intellectual of the late 20th century as he aligned Arabs with Marxist conceptions of victimhood, helping to support Islamic immigration.

VI. Post-Emancipation Jewish Intellectuals

The 19th century did not yet have Religious Zionism or Modern Orthodox as major movements within the confines of Halachic Judaism. The result was a situation rife with sectarianism because of the massive gulf between Orthodox and Sabbatean-influenced Reformed.

After Napoleon “liberated” the Jewish ghettos and the subsequent emancipations, Jews had no clear religious place. Many Orthodox Jews even opposed this “liberation.”

captureWhen ancient opinions of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated. From that moment we have no compass to govern us; nor can we know distinctly to what port we steer….
~Edmund Burke 

Newly emancipated Jews become like Kubrick’s untethered astronaut in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Thus, Jews were forever cleaved in half: Jews who remained in the ghetto Orthodox world and those who abandoned links to their past. Given the intractable theological distinctions between these two wings of Jewry, perpetual group conflict would be foreordained, ironically, in a manner akin to MacDonald’s theories. This dichotomy persists to this day: Ideologically, Jews look like a bar bell with polar extremes.

Freud is a good example of a Jewish heretic. In a notorious meeting with a rabbi, Freud is reputed to have disclosed his view, expressed in Moses and Monotheism, that Moses was a Pharaoh and killed by Jews. Freud bolted out of the meeting after the rabbi became incensed.

Perhaps Freud did feel a lingering attachment to his Jewishness, but his work subverted traditional morality with no special exclusion for Orthodox Judaism. Many of the subversive intellectuals in Culture of Critique, like Freud, descended from rabbi’s: Justice Frankfurter, Marx, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Horace Kallen, Nathan of Gaza, and Walter Benjamin. MacDonald correctly notes that Jewish intellectual movements seem to follow in the Jewish tradition of a charismatic rabbi leading a congregation — yes, of course, many of these intellectuals were the black sheep children of rabbi’s.

wiseVII. Development of Leftist American Jewry

Many of the three million Russian Jewish immigrants (1890-1924) to the United States were “weaponized” by the charismatic and brilliant Reformed Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise (the “Red Rabbi”). American Reformed Judaism, founded in Charleston, was historically not politicized, but Wise morphed it into the “Democratic party at prayer.”

It might be useful to view Jewish immigrants analogously to other immigrant groups like the Irish and their politicization from Tammany Hall. The Irish were left-wing until recently. The wave of Russian Jewish immigrants were similarly poor and reliant on unions and government services; they were tied into Democrat machine politics. Even as this cohort of immigrants advanced out of the working class, their political affiliation was passed on generationally (red diaper babies) since Reformed Judaism had been fully captured by the Left. They went on to “earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.”

In Europe Jews are Orthodox (about 50%), and, in the USA, they are 10-15% Orthodox. By some metrics, European Jews are to the right of White Europeans. As always, the political positions of Jews are heavily influenced by sectarianism.

VIII. Organized Jewry

Paul Gottfried has done research showing how Jewish communal groups formerly run by Germanic Jews were co-opted by Russian Jews in the 1930s and put towards radical causes and Zionism. After World War 2, the American Jewish Committee appears to have swung to the radical left; it wrote a hagiography of “Marxism is Judaism” Stephen Wise. The ADL was similarly deployed for the cause of Leftism under the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.

These nominally “Jewish” groups run interference for the Left and intentionally put themselves out front and draw fire from right-wing critics. How much criticism is drawn to the ADL for their role as a proxy for YouTube censorship? If Jews are resented for their power and influence, how will using a Jewish group to silence opposition solve anti-Semitism? So, far from acting in a positive manner to promote Jewish interest, they are throwing Jewry in the line of fire and thereby exacerbating anti-Semitism.

IX. Ethnic networking was driven by radical sectarianism

MacDonald’s focus is on “Jewish ethnic networking.” Yet, here the evidence suggests that the most applicable paradigm is sectarianism.

  • Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, descended from Frankists, cited his friend Horace Kallen as his inspiration for Zionism. Brandeis was so intrigued with Kallen’s Labor Zionism that he considered quitting SCOTUS to pursue it full time.
  • Louis Brandeis and his Supreme Court justice protégé, Felix Frankfurter, reputedly both had mothers from Bohemia who were of alleged Frankist ancestry (followers of Jacob Frank).
  • Making a perfect trifecta, SCOTUS Cardoza was from the dynasty of a Sephardic Sabbatean prophet.
  • The alleged Sabbatean Rabbi Stephen Wise tightly associated with Brandeis and Frankfurter (They collaborated with the failed effort to save European Jewry from the Nazi’s).
  • Wise, in turn, partnered with Jacob Schiff (with reputed Frankist ancestry) in the founding of the NAACP.
  • Kallen’s Parushin secret society, as described above, was sectarian.

So, the dominant figures in the early 20th century Jewish Left appear to have networked as radical sectarians.

X. False Historical Narratives

A) The Russian Revolution

MacDonald describes the Russian Revolution as “good for Jews” and “constituting a spectacularly, arguably uniquely, successful case of what I have described as an ethnocentric group competitive strategy in action.”  This seems dubious as the population of Jews in Russia has declined by over 90% since the Revolution. Further, Orthodox and secular Jews were in open sectarian war, as described by Richard Pipes:

9a85b7fb0f81884bfb746c0140d93ffbEvery Jewish cultural and social organization came under assault. Evsekti, working with the Soviets, seized synagogues in Gomel, Minsk, and Kharkov. They particularly fought against the efforts of the sixth Chabad Rebbe R’ Yosef Yitchak Schnersohn (on right) who urged his Chasidim to resist to their last drop of blood, causing many of them to be arrested and sometimes killed. The Rebbe himself was arrested in 1927.

MacDonald describes the “horrors perpetrated by the early Soviet state were rooted in the traditional attitudes of the Jews,” except that traditional Jews were the victims:

The stated mission of these sections was the “destruction of traditional Jewish life, the Zionist movement, and Hebrew culture.” The Yevsektsiya sought to draw Jewish workers into the revolutionary organizations; chairman Semyon Dimanstein, at the first conference in October 1918, pointed out that, “when the October revolution came, the Jewish workers had remained totally passive … and a large part of them were even against the revolution. The revolution did not reach the Jewish street. Everything remained as before”.

It appears that Jewish apathy during the Revolution was, paradoxically, what caused the Communists to redouble their efforts to bring them into “revolutionary organizations.” Jewish support for Communists increased as the Civil War continued and the Red Army seemed like the only force capable of bringing stability. Jewish theology seems to favor stability through Dina d’Malchuta dina and amicable relations with Christians through Noahide Law. If the Jews were not the catalyst for the Revolution, what did cause it?

During World War I, Germany had no choice but to incite a revolution owing to Russia’s strategic depth and unlimited manpower. They did not want the same invasion folly as Napoleon. Churchill discusses:

In the middle of April [1917] the Germans took a sombre decision. Ludendorff refers to it with bated breath. Full allowance must be made for the desperate stakes to which the German war leaders were already committed. They were in the mood which had opened unlimited submarine warfare with the certainty of bringing the United States into the war against them. Upon the Western front they had from the beginning used the most terrible means of offense at their disposal. They had employed poison gas on the largest scale and had invented the ‘Flammenwerfer.’ Nevertheless it was with a sense of awe that they turned upon Russia the most grisly of all weapons. They transported Lenin in a sealed truck like a plague bacillus from Switzerland into Russia.

Germany paid Lenin over $1 billion to hand out monies to crowds and bribe military units and politicians to rebel. Further, the German army intervened in the civil war by attacking non-Bolshevik aligned regiments. The German investment paid off handsomely as it finally knocked Russia out of the war and resulted in generous territorial concessions.

On the eve of the February Revolution in 1917, of about 23,000 members of the Bolshevik party, only 364 (about 1.6%) were known to be ethnic Jews. Similar to how the British Raj employed the Sikhs, it appears that Jews were brought into the German-funded coup. Jews were literate, competent administrators, and condensed in urban areas where the burgeoning Soviet administrative state was to be located. Many of these cities, like Kiev, had a Jewish population in excess of 40%.

While MacDonald makes much of the pro-Yiddish Soviet programs, this cultural enrichment was done with other ethnic groups like the Ukrainians and the Latvians. The purpose was to appeal to ethnic minorities to help Stalin consolidate power. Within a few years Stalin sought to heavily persecute Jews.

Ultimately, Germany intentionally installed what was the most insane governmental system and leader in modern history until that time. If anything, the Revolution furthers the argument that Jewish Leftist radicals attack their co-ethnics if given the chance and bring destruction upon all of Jewry. Hitler later used “Judeo-Bolshevism” as part of his rhetorical justification for the Holocaust.

B) The Holocaust

If AltRight views of Jewish power, nepotism, control over immigration policy, and ethno-centrism were true, why did millions of Jews get killed like helpless Gypsies? Indeed, since the Holocaust violates the ethnic-interest narrative so absolutely, many anti-Semites deny it in the face of overwhelming evidence.

  • What accounts for Rabbi Wise’s astonishing indifference to Jewish suffering at Hitler’s hands? Did the Jewish Left view Nazi brutality as helpful propaganda (certainly the Holocaust has been used by the Left to tar nationalism ever since)?
  • Why did the Evian Conference fail (no developed countries could be found to take Jews)? Wealthy US Jews had a tradition of tzedakah. Couldn’t monies have been raised to save Jews in the 1930s? As in Schindler’s List, it does appear that sufficient monies could have bought Jewish safety, as was the case in Bolivia.
  • After Kristallnacht, why wasn’t a mass scale evacuation of Germany conducted?
  • Why didFigure-6-Zeev-Jabotinsky Stephen Wise try to foil right-wing Zionist Jabotinsky when he was warning that European Jews were “on the edge of a volcano” and needed immediate evacuation?

In this sordid tale, was right-wing Jabotinsky the authentic ethno-centric Jew? MacDonald claims that ethno-centric Jews abhor European or white identity, but Jabotinsky romanticized the Boers so much that he wanted to volunteer to fight for them.

C) Jewish Support of Immigration

Wise men will apply their remedies to vices, not to names; to the causes of evil which are permanent, not to the occasional organs by which they act, and the transitory modes in which they appear. Otherwise you will be wise historically, a fool in practice. ~Edmund Burke

Instead of observing underlying trends and paradoxes associated with capitalism, democracy, modernity, and the ascendant administrative state, MacDonald latches onto Jews as the driving actors of history.

As discussed extensively in my prior essay on immigration, there has been a political motive to import like-minded groups going back to the 1840s and the Irish. Short naturalization periods have favored politicization of immigration because new immigrants can be quickly converted into voters. This is why non-white immigration is overwhelming nearly all Western European countries, regardless of their Jewish population. The 19th century “Know Nothing” nativists tried to address this issue by extending naturalization to 22 years. MacDonald’s arguments blaming Jewish ethnic interest are a red herring to this dynamic.

To prove that immigration was in the Jewish interest, MacDonald focuses upon four Jews: two radical sectarians, Israel Zangwill and Horace Kallen, and two Leftist machine politicos, Emmanuel Celler and Jacob Kravis. Yet, with the assassination of JFK in 1963, the two surviving Kennedy brothers, Teddy and Robert, had a blank check to enact any legislation they wanted. They cashed it in to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, which allowed wide-scale 3rd world immigration. RFK posthumously published “Nation of Immigrants,” written by JFK, to put the legacy of his deceased brother firmly behind this effort.

CaptureMacDonald is so obsessed with the role of Jews that he specifically exonerates Teddy Kennedy. It’s risible for MacDonald to claim that Celler, a bespeckled, diminuative, and relatively unknown Queens congressman, was the public face of the push for the ’65 law. Barack Obama, Patrick Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Breitbart, Democrat consultants, and NumbersUSA view Teddy Kennedy as the most influential figure behind the immigration surge of the last 50 years. The two Kennedy brothers both falsely claimed that the impact of the ’65 law would be marginal.

MacDonald erroneously focuses upon the 1965 immigration act, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made the 1965 immigration act a fait accompli. He claims that “the 1965 reform was thus not the result of popular pressure but rather of a 40-year program of activism,” yet the racially-restrictive immigration act of 1924 was already untenable after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on national origin. Further, subsequent immigration legislation pushed by Teddy Kennedy may have been more consequential, including the Amnesty Act of 1986 and expanded refugee programs.

While MacDonald makes a legitimate case that Jews would have had an ethnic interest in importing three million Jews from Russia from 1890-1924, this isn’t distinct from Irish politicians who pursued the same policy (and, coincidentally, the Irish did have malice against the traditionally Anglo-Saxon UK/USA).

What’s so peculiar is that he ascribes the 1965 legislation as similarly being in the Jewish ethnic interest despite no concomitant interest in importing Jews. According to MacDonald: “Immigration policy is a paradigmatic example of conflicts of interest between ethnic groups because immigration policy determines the future demographic composition of the nation,” but modern immigration policy has helped reduce America’s relative Jewish population by over 50%. His argument is inherently dubious from an evolutionary perspective. Rather, the interest of Leftist Jewish groups in pushing immigration wasn’t “ethnic,” but should be linked to coalition politics as non-White immigrants vote for Democrats at an over 82% rate.

At the time of the 1965 immigration act, there were over 1.5 million Jews still left in the USSR where they had been enduring persecution since the 1920s. If the proponents of immigration were acting in the Jewish interest, why wasn’t there a call to save them? In fact, the opposite is the case as Leftist Jewish groups ignored their suffering since the Jewish Refusniks were right-wing anti-communists. Thus, a low-level terrorist war and an attempted hijacking were necessary to draw attention to their plight. Allegedly Jewish-interest organizations, such as the New York Times and the ADL (right-wing Kahane even targeted the ADL to help the Refusniks), were opposed or silent until this became a popular right-wing cause in the 1980s.

According to MacDonald “Jewish activism on immigration is merely one strand of a multipronged movement directed at preventing the development of a mass movement of anti-Semitism in Western societies”. Yet, if this is the case, why have the dominant groups imported to the West been anti-Semitic? Latin American countries were not welcoming of Jews fleeing Germany in the 30s. Muslim immigration to Europe has caused a spike in hostility to Jews, returning matters to Kristallnacht conditions where synagogues can be burned with impunity.

When confronted with the obvious flaws in his thesis regarding Jews pushing for Islamic immigration, MacDonald resorts to teleological reasoning and use of the non-sequitur.

Even if we grant that Jews might feel more comfortable in a pluralistic society, he falls into a slippery slope insofar as growing an anti-Semitic non-white population will eventually redound upon Jewish interest. Indeed, in the last year, three Jewish Democrat Senators have been attacked by their own party in California, Minnesota, and Hawaii. In Britain, the Jewish Left has already been thrown under the bus in favor of Islam (so much for Jewish power?).

There is, as always, a sectarian dimension to this insofar as Orthodox Jews are visibly Jewish and are therefore at much greater risk from physical violence from Muslim immigrants. In Paris it is now risky to wear a kippah. yankelWhile Leftist Jews might support pluralism for their coalition politics, New York Orthodox Jews were victims of the “Crown Heights Pogrom.” Blacks targeted the homes of Jews by the mezzuzah’s on their doorposts. One Orthodox Jew, Yankel Rosenbaum, a 6 foot 5 black belt in karate, fought off a mob of 300 while the police stood by. His death prompted a backlash among New York Orthodox Jews, contributing to the election of Rudy Giuliani and their increasing affiliation with the Republican party.

Iraq War

A major catalyst for the AltRight and widespread acceptance of MacDonald’s ethno-centric theory was the narrative of the Iraq War debacle being a “war for Israel.” MacDonald erroneously stated that “Sharon, as Prime Minister in 2003, was indeed deeply involved in the deceptions that brought about the war.” However, it turns out that Sharon desperately tried to stop the war.

CaptureThe warning against an invasion of Iraq was “pervasive” in Israeli communications with the administration, Wilkerson recalls. It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence and private citizens.

The Likud party didn’t support the war.

Most strategists in the Israeli government and the Likud Party — including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon himself — did not share that viewpoint.  Despite agreement between neoconservatives and Israeli officials on many issues, the dominant Israeli strategic judgment on the issue of invading Iraq diverged from that of U.S. neoconservatives because of differing political-military interests.

Israel was more concerned with the relative military threat posed by Iran, whereas neoconservatives in the Bush administration were focused on regime change in Iraq as a low-cost way of leveraging more ambitious changes in the region.  From the neoconservative perspective, the very military weakness of Hussein’s Iraq made it the logical target for the use of U.S. military power.

So, the Bush administration and its NeoCons were more interested in leveraging more ambitious changes in the region and not Israel, per se, and were more akin to modern-day Jacobins in their monomaniacal obsession with democratization and lack of concern for Israeli security.

Israel fought a war against two militant Islamist movements supported by Iran — Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza — that were enfranchised and legitimized in their anarchic countries thanks to Bush’s insistence on hasty and ill-advised democratic elections “in this part of the world.”

Israel PM Ariel Sharon presciently warned Bush about the risks associated with the Iraq War and democratization. Sharon had managed the disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and confronted its resulting insurgency; he was perfectly aware of flaws underlying the Iraq War. 15 years later, Iran is now in Syria, Iraq, and has control over Lebanon. Iran has emerged as the great beneficiary of the Iraq War, just as Sharon warned. Yet, MacDonald risibly claims that Israel is “quite happy with the consequences“.

Realistically, in the days following the 9/11 attack, how could Israel not support Bush in his adventure, however confused it might have been? The United States had supported Israel in the dark days of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. So, Israel, as a loyal fiefdom, had no choice but to support the United States despite long-term risks.

X. Recent changes in Orthodox Jewry

Much of the reason for the flaws in MacDonald’s analysis comes from recent changes in Jewry and immigration politics. It wasn’t clear from the vantage of the 1990s, when MacDonald wrote his trilogy, that Islamic immigrants would swamp Europe. Nor was it clear Israel would become right-wing, or that Orthodox groups in the Diaspora would swing far right and seek alliances with like-minded Christian groups.

Approximately 50% of Jewish babies in New York City are Orthodox. The weight of Orthodox demographics is bearing down on Jewish political views, particularly among young Diaspora Jewish men, who are to the right of Western white men.


Yet, with the formation of Israel, Jews had to get down to the serious business of statecraft, something the luftmenschen had no capacity to serve. By 2050, Israel should have more than double the Jewish population of the Diaspora. Thus, inexorably, Jewry will be pulled back into a historical reactionary alignment and will likely seek to align with like-minded gentiles.



4 thoughts on “The Jewish Question, Answered”

  1. Let me start by thanking you for all the work you put into writing this. I’ve been hoping you’d write a comprehensive statement on MacDonald since you first became active on twitter.

    There are two broad problems, tho:

    1. You’re writing like a lawyer or a junior-high debater. But who are you hoping to persuade? Your endless sequence of rhetorical questions chained one on another might be impressive if your blog-post were published in the NYT and tens of thousands of people skimmed it while nodding along, half-attentive.

    But as it is you’re making a contribution to a fairly small world of dissident ideas. You need to think about ways to contribute that actually help to resolve questions, rather than merely putting the best possible spin on them. (If you don’t understand the difference between those two options, then… lol.)

    Most of these rhetorical questions you’ve posed in lieu of arguments, I think you could easily have come up with a plausible answer. You probably could have come up with a list of five or ten! But the point isn’t to insist either on your position or the reverse – it’s to figure out what the possible scope of disagreement is, what drives the underlying uncertainty that makes disagreement tenable, how the different open questions interact in different theories that apply to all of them at once, and what evidence might settle it one way or the other.

    So to summarize this first point: you’re thinking like a rhetorician when you should be thinking like a craftsman, or a stonemason. If we lay the foundation-stones properly, one on top of another, we’ll start to get somewhere.

    2. There is one issue that you systematically seem to misunderstand, which is the relationship of Orthodox Jews to Reform Jews and other eccentric sects. The bottom line is, you can blame Jewish misadventures going back nearly a thousand years on heretical sects only because *there are always more of them*.

    No matter how many heretical sects flare up and die out, they never actually disappear. How is that possible? Well, they come from Orthodox Jewry, of course. Today, the Reform Jews are dying out, but they are replaced by Orthodox > Reform converts just as quickly; the Orthodox Jews are above-replacement fertility (iirc), but due to deconversions are stable mainly because of Hasid > Orthodox conversions: and the Hasidim are reproducing very quickly.

    The main interesting idea KMac had is to treat groups the way we treat organisms. Gene 1 doesn’t have to like Gene 2; it doesn’t even have to promote Gene 2’s primary effects; the only thing that matters is that they work together to protect the organism, and when the organism multiplies you inevitably get Gene 1 & 2 together again.

    I believe that you personally dislike Reform Jews! And probably many Reform Jews dislike you. Likewise the Pentagon hates the State Dept., the State Dept. hates the Pentagon; the SS hated the SA, and so on and so forth. But anyone who analyzed the whole history of NSDAP or US foreign policy and didn’t understand that while they tended to frustrate each other, the two wings actually each tended to promote their common interests would end up saying trivial and uninteresting things about nearly all the major events.

    (I will mention, without insisting on, two subpoints: namely that rumors of unorthodoxy swirl around many Jews of either denomination, and it is trivially easy for you to credit the rumors only for notorious leftists; and that in practice, if you were around Jews on, say, a college campus you’d notice that they bond around their shared culture first and ask questions about how strict they are later.)


    1. This is part 1 of a two part essay. Part 1 asks questions. Part 2 explains them. So, this wasn’t an attempt to get to an answer. It was already 20 pages. Also, I wanted to get feedback.
      The major issue with KMac is conflating historical Jewry with Jewry post emancipation. Of course Judaism always had sectarian movements, but nothing on the scale of Reform Judaism. The most powerful group in Jewry was steadfastly opposed to Torah law. Nothing like that ever happened in Jewish history. KMac glosses this over because it violates his ethnocentric narrative. Jews may have done bad things prior to emancipation, but they weren’t active leftist radicals, which is the core argument of Culture of Critique. So, this was a fork in the road that he ignores because Jews became hyper-sectarian.
      If you read between the lines, the answer is obvious. Jewry is a case study in hyper-sectarianism. If Jews have an extreme secular/religious divide, then what of society at whole? Did the Enlightenment just create societal warfare by empowering secularists? So, in this war between secularists and traditionalists, secularists would gladly sell out their co-ethnics and let them be genocided. Isn’t that what’s happening in Europe? So, KMac is entirely wrong in his ethnic analysis. There are plenty of whites who would gladly sell you out.
      I think Reform Judaism is flawed but for many Jews being Orthodox is impossible from a practical standpoint. I had a good experience with it growing up, but institutionally it can end up being at war with Orthodox and it has gotten worse in the last 20 years.
      The issue of Hasidim is interesting because a small side group is now becoming much more numerous. My assumption is that they’ll be assimilated partially (Israel is taking the lead on this). This was far beyond the scope. So, I’ll follow up with a second essay, but it’ll take months.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I understand wanting to get feedback, of course. I’ll reserve judgment until I see part 2. But I hope you will strongly consider thinking of your strategy as “offering small, incontrovertible, versatile answers to small questions with no specific ideological value” – in other words, realism – rather than playing the role of the defense attorney.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s