In my previous post I hinted toward the topic of anti-semitism without saying so explicitly. It was only vaguely relevant and hinting in such a manner is just fun to do. Here I’ll be focusing more explicitly on the topic.

Among the small group of people who’ve heard of Albert Jay Nock, many will know that he’s been accused of anti-semitism. Searching for the source of that belief I generally come across sites by fans of his defending him by pointing out his later statement that he really just dislikes “folks” and disliked Jews in so far as they were “folks”. What a charming fellow he was. I was expecting a sort of proto-Kevin MacDonald. After a period of googling I found that the Atlantic carried a reply from James Marshall entitled The Anti-Semitic Problem in America. From there I found Nock’s original article, and from my reading that would have actually been a more appropriate title than The Jewish Problem in America (part 2 here).

Part 1 is devoted to the issue of anti-semitism, especially its tendency to erupt among the lower classes during a crisis and carry along the reluctant elite and masters of the State (he probably would have enjoyed Thomas Sowell’s Are Jews Generic? as well as Amy Hua’s World on Fire). The second part is about how the Oriental and Occidental in a mirror image must view those who are not von unsere Leute to be “the Other” in modern academic jargon. Nock holds out little hope for assimilation to proceed as it did for Irish immigrants before him.

Here he strikes me as wrong for multiple reasons. His image of Irish immigrants seems to be based on a myth promulgated by the Irish themselves. Jews in America today are so thoroughly Occidentalized that if anyone referred to them as “Oriental” in the presence of representative Americans (not people fond of the word “sayanim”) he would receive bewildered looks. Nock is right about some of the same issues applying to other Orientals such as Armenians and Lebanese (as is thoroughly discussed in Sowell’s essay) but the former hardly seem too alien nowadays and the latter only to a significant degree if they are Muslim (which most in America are not). Nock worries about Nurenberg laws and ropes on lampposts arriving in America within his lifetime, but as folks like Steve Sailer point out the peasants have had much more than pitchforks for a long time here and there has never been a real pogrom against the Jews (although there was a little bit of that directed against the Italians). The peak of anti-Eastern European sentiment is generally attributed to or at least linked to the Second Ku Klux Klan, which the IRS forced to dissolve due to embezzlement in 1944 but had been declining since the 1925 conviction of Grand Dragon David Stephenson for rape and murder. Their anti-Jewish violence didn’t seem to extend much past the lynching of Leo Frank (who at least received a trial, however kangaroo-like, unlike most pogrom victims).

Given that Nock’s pessimism proved to be unwarranted, should that make me rethink my own? I think the two cases are different for a number of reasons. One is that the “generic” Oriental acts as a middle-man minority or “market-dominant” minority. That is not at all the case with our Mexican or more broadly Hispanic immigrants. They are distinctive for acting as agricultural neo-peasants, servants and (most worryingly) an urban lumpenproletariat underclass. There are certainly middle-class Hispanics, but overlap does not imply equality and I am focusing on what is distinctive enough to merit attention. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence in. Within a few generations the Irish, Italian, Jewish and Polish immigrants assimilated to middle class norms. A recent study by Hispanic academics is entitled “Generations of Exclusion” precisely because a socioeconomic gap has remained pronounced over four or five generations. We even have case studies of where Jewish and Mexican immigrants arrived at the same place at the same time, with widely divergent results. Nock’s concern was with anti-semitic attitudes among the American mass-man, which have turned out to be largely irrelevant (though apparently Al Sharpton caused some problems in Crown Point a while back). If his concern was that Jews weren’t becoming Midwestern farmers like other German immigrants, he would be up a creek without a paddle.

On my part I should concede that immigrants to America do not seem to have the same proclivity for terrorism and rioting (which seems to have peaked in the U.S in the 70s) as Muslims in Europe do. However, while there may be reduced levels of social pathology the sheer size of the demographics could make it more serious. Jews make up only about 2% of the population today and I don’t think they were ever far more. That’s well below any sort of critical mass. In some decades the country could be majority-minority in which only a plurality of citizens identify with Huntington’s “settlers” and huge portions feel alienated. That’s heading into World on Fire territory.

Even without communal violence, a permanent underclass is an unpleasant thing to have. Our indigenous population on reservations is depressing enough despite its low numbers and removed location. We witness cycles of failed policies that spur other bad policies. After the Great Migration northward around WW2 there were public housing projects and urban renewal. Then there was white flight and bussing, with further flight from suburbs to exurbs and the Sun Belt. Now the residential patterns are reversing with gentrification and Section 8 housing. In response to increased crime rates voters look to authoritarian “law and order” politicians like Giuliani. Poor housing and lack of credit led to campaigns against redlining, and then Fannie Mae and ACORN teaming up to create the subprime bubble. Disparities in employment led to the ban on IQ tests in hiring, necessitating a college degree as a substitute. Everyone then needed one, so both colleges and high schools inflated their grades and the value of a degree dropped. The government spent more and more money to make college affordable, with the obvious result of colleges increasing their prices as long they could. Affirmative action was deemed an acceptable temporary remedy, but John Rosenberg can tell you how tenaceously enduring it is, which shouldn’t be surprising as the underlying problem it is supposed to solve doesn’t get solved. Educational interventions such as Head Start were shown to have no lasting effect on the scholastic gap, but politicians insist No Child must be Left Behind. That in turn necessitates that schools cheat on standardized tests. Parents want their children to go to “good schools” which it turns out just means “good students”, and vouchers threaten to ruin things for the lucky ones, so they will reliably oppose measures that would reduce the power of teacher’s unions and slow down the growth of the administrative bureaucracy. People also seek to live in “good neighborhoods” largely defined by “good schools”, and will use a host of zoning or environmental restrictions to keep others out and ensure those neighborhoods stay “good” and housing prices high. Neglecting to invest in anything but your house seems rational when there’s rampant inflation, and inflation is popular when the government and huge portions of the population are debtors. Discuss these issues candidly and receive the fate of Summers or Watson. Those hardheaded scientists are so irritating they seem needing gleichgeschalten.

It seems I’ve gotten carried away from the original topic. So I suppose the answer to Daniel Koffler’s question is no, the goyim don’t really care that much about the Chosen People.

UPDATE: I’m kicking myself for not linking to this from Steve Sailer tying up how Jewish fear of anti-semitism impedes our discourse on other issues. I’ve mentioned before that even some of the most mistaken ideologies have a grain of truth to them that permits them to thrive, and this is no exception. Human beings are prone to having an ingroup-outgroup bias that can manifest itself in some pretty violent ways. Ethnic/racial conflict is one of the most ugly kinds, as documented by people like Chua. That is in fact why I am so wary of the World on Fire scenario. I think the country is currently in a state where it could openly deal with such issues in an open and peaceful manner, but I also think our good fortune is a rare thing that could slip from our grasp unexpectedly.

Advertisements