Excusing Anti-Semitism

Thursday, September 25, 2014

As I have indicated here many times, I oppose multiculturalism as a left-wing attack on individualism disguised as opposition to racism and similar injustices, such as religious persecution. That said, many people who sincerely oppose these injustices subscribe to or are influenced, knowingly or not, by this nefarious doctrine.

It is instructive to see how toothless this makes them when they encounter bigotry. For an example, try reading a recent New York Times article regarding the rise of a "new anti-Semitism" in Europe among its Moslem population. After lots of looking for extenuating circumstances, the author concludes in part:

What has become obvious this summer is that the "old" Germans have not yet managed to properly deliver this message to all the "new" Germans. Emotionally, this may have been understandable, given how many "bio-Germans," as we call ethnic Germans, actually had Nazi family members that they still got to know, which may have made them wary of telling others what to think.
I agree that there have been problems with the way Germans have attempted to warn the world against repeating what happened in Nazi Germany. (Incidentally, here is a much better warning and antidote.) However, as someone who has visited Germany, I must say that it is almost impossible to go there without noticing that many, if not most Germans have at least (a) acknowledged what happened, and (b) condemned it as unspeakably wrong. Indeed, author Jochen Bittner notes earlier in his article that a particularly virulent rally occurred "just yards from Berlin's main Holocaust memorial".

This is not to say that the mere existence of such memorials -- any more than mere exposure to facts of any kind -- will guarantee that someone will reach correct conclusions and thereby attain enlightenment, but: There is a point at which it is proper to condemn an unthinking brute as an unthinking brute.

There is also a point at which, a phenomenon being observed over and over again, demands connecting some dots. Such a phenomenon, encountered the world over, is: Moslems advocating brutality against Jews.

Rather than look for extenuating circumstances as to why Moslems might have a problem with Jews (let alone want to brutalize and kill them), perhaps it's time to consider what, about Islam, might be encouraging its adherents to hold such opinions. A good place to start would be to consider what anti-Semitism is -- a form of collectivism, a subordination of the individual to the group.

But what I advocate above may not help anyone under the spell of multiculturalism, which itself advocates collectivism and the abdication of making moral pronouncements -- value-judgements -- of any kind. That is too bad, to say the least. For if we truly wish to marginalize anti-Semitism -- Men have free will, so it cannot be completely eliminated. -- we must understand what encourages it and fight against that. The idea that all cultures are exempt from critical examination is the surest way to avoid doing this, and so perpetuate such brutality.

-- CAV


Gus Van Horn said...

An anonymous commenter mentions the Rotherham rapes, which were ignored or abetted by authorities due to multiculturalism. (I object to aspects of the wording and will not publish the original comment here.)

The commenter concludes, "Islamic immigration will be the death of Europe." I disagree: Multiculturalism and the welfare state will be the end of Europe, if nothing changes.

What happened to rule of law, earning one's own keep, and, in the case of lawless foreigners, deportation?

Anonymous said...

But isn't immigration entrancing multiculturalism and the welfarev state?

Would you place any limits on the number of Muslims who could come to the west?

Gus Van Horn said...



(1) Your first sentence makes no sense.

(2) Although our governments haven't declared one, the Moslem world is at war with us, so barring people from Moslem countries would be appropriate. But if we weren't, I would place no limits, so long as our government made a proper distinction between actual citizens and other people who happen to be here. Part of such a distinction would be a major reform in the process of acquiring citizenship. (And, of course, our government should be protecting individual rights (vs., e.g., abetting rape) and not actively violating them (e.g., supporting people, including citizens, with looted funds).


Anonymous said...

I meant to say "entrench the welfare state and multiculturalism."

I don't think there can be any doubt about that. Look at California - since it has become so immigrant heavy it became a one party state controlled by the Democrats and the unions.

Is there any doubt that this would happen to state after state if immigration were expanded? How long would Texas last without an income tax if Mexicans become the majority. Poll after poll show that Hispanics are strongly in favor of big government and higher taxes on the rich.

I can't think of a single country in Europe or state in the US that has become more free market oriented thanks to immigration.

What if we weren't at war with Muslims. Assume that there was no such thing as Jihadist Islam. There were just Muslims who, when they become a majority would vote in Sharia.

Why should Israel and Europe adopt an immigration policy that would turn them Muslim?

As far as Rotherham goes, consider that Pakistanis are only three percent in that city. Imagine if there we no restrictions on immigration and Muslims were the majority of the judges, policemen and prosecutors.


Gus Van Horn said...


Your examples overlook several provisos in my answer and make various assumptions about behavior that you should question.


(1) Regarding voting and subversion of proper government, were a nation to have a rational immigration policy, that would include measures to ensure that people who become citizens are at least somewhat assimilated. (Although this would not guarantee a slide into sharia, or some other form of improper government.)

(2) And then, regarding immigrants somehow always voting a certain way, the question to ask is why. Discounting the Amerindians who were here before the European settlers, practically our whole country has an immigrant population, and became CLOSER to capitalism until about the late nineteenth century, when improper government power began expanding at the behest of America's own citizens.

People (a) have free will, and (b) act according to the ideas they hold. It is people's minds that have to favor limited government. That instituition can neither exist in a vacuum nor perpetuate itself.

I'll leave it at that for now, and point to some more thoughts on immigration and proper government.