All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 7, 2023 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer
28:17
Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit radixjournal.substack.comAn epic Tuesday afternoon discussion! In the provided sample, Richard and Mark discuss the recent Congressional resolution denouncing antisemitism, evoking Leo Strauss. In the final hour, the gang takes a deep dive into the Ukraine war, which increasingly seems unwindable.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Let me read the resolution.
So strongly condemning and denouncing the drastic rise of anti-Semitism in the United States and around the world.
Whereas acts of hate, intimidation, discrimination, and violence based on ethnicity or religion have no place in our country nor in the global community.
So it always strikes me as funny when You denounce something that's been happening since the Stone Age and saying that it has no place.
It's like saying no one should die of cancer or something.
That has no place in our society.
Well, that's just a ridiculous statement.
No one should be alone.
You know, everyone should have a meal.
I mean, you're describing a phenomenon that is so universal that to condemn it is just absurd.
I mean, and they're condemning not just anti-Semitism, but discrimination and violence based on ethnicity or religion.
I mean, they are describing human history.
They're describing the history of their own institutions, in fact.
And claiming that this has no place.
It's just a ridiculous, absurd statement.
Anyway, resolved that the House of Representatives strongly condemns and denounces all instances of anti-Semitism occurring in the United States and globally.
Reaffirms and reiterates its strong support for the Jewish community at home and abroad.
All right, so we support Jews here, we support Israel.
So they're equating that.
And then calls on elected officials and world leaders to condemn and fight all forms of domestic and global anti-Semitism.
So everyone on the planet must be fighting this, in fact.
Clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
Rejects all...
That's going to be the key there.
That's platform four.
Rejects all forms of terror, hate, discrimination, and harassment of members of the Jewish community.
Now,
Now, I actually have a lot to say about this.
This is a very complex thing.
And I think it's worth looking at all the layers of this.
So, when you hear something like this, some immediate objections come to mind.
And these objections have been voiced by Mainstream legislators.
So Massey, who's a congressman from Kentucky, is actually an interesting guy.
I sometimes find him to be a bit of a libertarian crank.
He is Ron Paul 2.0 in many ways, or I guess Rand Paul was Ron Paul 2.0, so he's 3.0, but you get my drift.
I think he's a decent guy.
But anyway.
He opposed this.
And he actually said something to the effect, you know, like the Congress in particular and the government in general should not be telling people what to believe.
Like, don't you have, at the end of the day, a right to be anti-Semitic?
Don't you have a right to think that the Unabomber was a cool guy?
Don't you have a right to believe in fairies and unicorns?
You know, there's just...
Some of these views might be more benign than others, but at the end of the day, you have a right to them.
Denouncing something from government is just obviously a First Amendment violation.
Now, this is a resolution, so does this matter?
You know, arguably it does, but it remains a First Amendment violation.
If they said we denounce Buddhism in all its forms, I think it would be quite obvious that the government was taking a stand on what you believe.
So that's a decent objection that I agree with.
Denounce is different from prohibit, right?
Correct. They're denouncing it, but they're not prohibiting it.
And prohibiting it would be a violation of free speech.
Well, yes.
It goes farther than that, because a teacher at a public school can talk about, say, what Christianity is, or the life of Jesus, but she cannot lead the class in prayer.
So it actually does go further than that.
Obviously, a public school principal can't...
Not teach someone who's Buddhist or an atheist.
That's pretty obvious.
But it goes a little bit further than that.
You can't make it seem like you're excluded if you don't take part in this.
Now, out here in Montana, I think that's often honored in the breach more than the observance.
They do these like Christmas.
It's very benign, and they're singing about Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and things like that.
I'm not going to object, obviously, but they kind of are promoting Christianity, to be honest.
It's so benign, only Emonies or Scrooge would complain.
But anyway, the other objection, and actually, Jerry Nadler...
Who is this Jewish representative from New York?
It's actually pretty interesting because he said that anti-Zionism is distinct from anti-Semitism.
And in fact, many Jews who are his constituents are anti-Zionist.
So he is a representative from some part of New York where there are...
Many of these anti-Zionist Jews, they're basically extremely pro-Jewish, but they'll say things like, it's an affront to God to re-establish Zion or re-enter Jerusalem before the Messiah returns,
or not returns, excuse me, comes.
And so they have this kind of curious stance on it, and you can find a number of Jews who are like this.
Now, I would say that those people, I don't know, represent like 3% of world Jewry at the most.
But, you know, they are.
And obviously they're not anti-Semitic.
So how could you equate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism?
Fair enough.
But I actually, I don't know, I guess my objection to this...
And it's related to these things, but it's actually really different.
And I think it gets at something deeper and a little more insidious, and I think something that is worth talking about.
So, obviously, and I'll talk about this on two levels.
So, obviously, we're adults.
We can make distinctions between You know, two different phenomenon.
You could be a rabid Germanophile and love German cuisine and you read Goethe on weekends, but you happily fight the Nazis and so on.
Obviously, that is a completely normal perspective for many people to have.
But first off, let me just...
I'll start out saying this.
Don't you find that on some level, being anti-Zionist is being anti-Semitic?
I mean, aren't they in a way getting at something?
In the sense that these actions in Gaza have no doubt inspired a great deal of anti-Semitism among Americans and people around the world.
Because... Israel isn't just a country that is majority Jewish.
It is a Jewish state that is establishing itself as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
it's a Jewish state that is near the holy sites of this
I mean, it goes so far in the sense that Yahweh might be in effect
In effect, present near the temple.
We might be close to the Holy of Holies, the actual physical location of the God Yahweh.
So, the fact that this country is doing these things that are offending the world is quite significant.
And I think that they, that in a way, it's...
Fair to say that being anti-Zionist is being anti-Jewish.
Because again, this isn't just some curious country where, you know, it has a bunch of Jews, but it has a secular constitution or whatever.
But this is a country that is a fulfillment of the very Bible.
So in a way, if you are criticizing Israel, you are criticizing Judaism.
And I was thinking about this last night.
I was reminded of one of my favorite quotations from Leo Strauss.
So, Leo Strauss has a good book.
It's called The History of Political Philosophy.
He edited it, actually.
And it's very long, goes through basically all major philosophers.
And he offers kind of like an introduction.
You know, explanation or explication, but then also his own perspective on them.
And he's talking about Machiavelli and Machiavelli references David and he references God.
And it's, he has a, Leo Strauss has, and Leo Strauss claims that Machiavelli has a kind of interpretation of this, the meek shall inherit the earth or the...
You know, he must make the rich poor and the poor rich.
And what Machiavelli is saying is that when you establish a new sovereignty or a new prince, you need to make everything dependent upon you.
So everything must be new.
So you have to dispossess all of the rich people and raise up all of the poor people so that they know that they are entirely dependent on you.
And this is how you establish yourself as a new leader.
Leo Strauss was getting at was that it's interesting that this is suggesting that Yahweh is himself a kind of prince or tyrant.
And you can kind of go from there.
In some ways, being a prince is making yourself God.
Anyway, what he's saying is that that insidious, blasphemous, very dangerous sentiment.
Is implanted in the reader's mind of Machiavelli, even though it's not said outright.
He's implying very dangerous thoughts.
And this is the esoteric quality of Machiavelli and also the esoteric quality of Leo Strauss's interpretive method.
So he's implying these things, but he's allowing you to think them.
So he'll take you from A to B to C and a half, maybe?
And then he'll let you go to D. But D is where the actual blasphemy is.
And this is writing under persecution, basically.
But this is a direct quote.
But the concealed blasphemy is so insidious, not only because it projects the blasphemer against...
Excuse me.
Not only because it protects the blasphemer against punishment by due process of law, because again, you haven't said anything blasphemous, but above all because it practically compels the hearer or reader to think the blasphemy by himself and thus to become an accomplice in the blasphemer.
So what I'm suggesting here is that It's almost, when you start declaring that anti-Semitism, excuse me,
anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, aren't you, in a way, giving people ideas?
Are you actually suggesting in their mind that that is correct?
And in fact, if you are anti-Zionist, you should also be anti-Semitic.
By which we mean anti-Jewish and anti-Yahweh.
Is this a kind of dangerous thing to suggest to people's minds?
And might it imply a sort of passive aggression among Jews?
So let me unpack what I'm saying here.
So I've made the joke often about the anti-German guilt trip that goes on in academia, where And there's a long tradition of this, of, you know, German history from Luther to Hitler.
And it's just, you know, Bismarck was a Nazi.
Wilhelm, Kaiser Wilhelm was a Nazi.
Well, you know, that one has maybe some kernels of truth.
You know, it's all Nazis.
It's all turtles all the way down.
It's all Nazis all the way down.
You dig into German history, you uncover a swastika under every rock.
But it's a dangerous thing to say, in fact.
Because if you keep telling Germans that they're inherently Nazi, at some point they might believe you and take you up on the offer.
And the entire valuation that you're putting forth gets flipped.
And the German says, I am a Nazi.
And Martin Luther was a Nazi.
We're all Nazis.
It's a very dangerous thing.
And when you keep equating anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, at what point do people hear that and say, yeah, you're right.
I am anti-Semitic.
If I were a Jew, I would take Jerry Nadler's perspective, and I think he's being, at least in the long term or medium term, a kind of canny operator.
What's happening in Gaza right now is going to diminish the standing of Israel in the eyes of the world.
It's going to reduce its legitimacy.
And I think it will ultimately strongly reduce the legitimacy of Judaism itself.
Because Israel isn't just any country.
And that is a huge problem.
But as more people get this in their mind and it's declared to them that they are in fact anti-Semitic, they, again, might at some point start believing their critics.
And so it's a very dangerous game.
But it also kind of makes me wonder, you know, and I got at this a little bit.
The other night with Nick, where is there a kind of passive-aggressive instinct, like an unconscious motivation among Jews to inspire anti-Semitism?
And as I said the other night, to empower their persecutors and to disempower their friends.
If you imagine 1960 demographics in the United States remaining for eternity, we might very well have had a lot of the liberalism that we've had today.
Obviously, this is kind of coming from white leaders to a very large degree, etc.
But I think it's also fair to say that The country would be much more Zionist than it is right now.
And if you look at some of this polling, like Biden is flailing around, I think it's like 35% of Democrats approve of Israel's actions in Gaza.
So basically a strong majority is condemning what is happening right now.
This is very interesting.
Would not have seen this 20 years ago.
But if we had kept our, you know, demographics, it seems like we would be a more rabidly Zionist country.
I can remember even 20 years ago, say after 9-11, when, you know, the patriot-hearted nonsense was just at its zenith, you know, people...
Just wearing these big flag pins and crucifixes and big, you know, these fatos with big American flag t-shirts waddling around talking about killing Muslims and bringing them to democracy.
You know, it's like that line from Full Metal Jacket.
Within every gook is an American just waiting to get out.
And, you know, within every Muslim is a Democrat just...
You know, if we bomb them enough times, he'll finally be empowered to, you know, to vote for the right guys.
That was a whiter country.
And that type of mentality was primarily popular among white Christians and probably white Protestants in particular.
And Southerners in particular.
But it was popular across the board.
It's harder to get America whipped up into such a frenzy at this point.
There's a generational aspect to that, no question.
There's a demographic aspect.
There's a racial component to that.
You are demanding that brown people support this Bombing of brown people in another country and like it.
Now, Arabs themselves are a small percentage of the population.
I think it's 1-2% or 3% maybe.
It's very small.
But there are many more Hispanics.
There are many more Asians.
Many more Indians, just many more different people where they see something like this and they're just thinking to themselves, what do we have at stake with all this?
Why are we supporting these obviously violent actions against poor third world communities?
This community that might remind me of home in many ways.
Why would I support this?
Yet, as we know, the demographic change of the United States is not entirely, of course, but it is to a large degree, to a significant degree worth talking about, a kind of Jewish project.
And, you know, the notion of America turning away boats of Jews fleeing the Holocaust, etc., these are foundational myths as much as the Statue of Liberty.
And Ellis Island for, you know, Irish and Italians, etc.
So it has been a kind of Jewish project, but why?
Why would you ultimately, in the long term, empower your own persecutors?
It's a fascinating question.
Is there a kind of passive-aggressive instinct within Judaism?
To inspire a little anti-Semitism.
I mean, after all...
Isn't there like a yoke about this, that if the rabbis got to decide in medieval Europe, the walls to the ghettos would be even higher?
Because they're sort of like...
Particularly like the Orthodox types, they are getting nurtured from this sort of anti-Semitism because they want to be separate.
And they don't really want Jewish people to simulate and be...
It's a balance, you know, because there definitely are Jews who want to be ghettoized and they want Jewish marriage only.
Let's remove ourselves from the Gentile community.
There are Jews like that, no doubt.
But obviously, the mainstream Jews aren't like that.
I mean, they are to maybe a degree, you know, on Saturday.
And, you know, in certain clubs.
And then there are many Jews who want to absolutely engage with the Gentiles and, you know, be a part of it.
So it's a kind of balance.
But isn't there, isn't a certain, like, requisite amount of anti-Semitism necessary to maintain cohesion?
You know, I mean, as I've said many times, like, the Visigoths don't really exist.
Now, I might, you know, because I have German ancestry, I might be a little bit Visigoth or something, but it doesn't have the meaning that Judaism does, in the sense that it's a coherent community that,
at least according to them, is 3,000 years old.
That's a remarkable thing.
And then the other thing I would also suggest is, is there a kind of, maybe a secret death wish?
Is there a death drive, as Freud might say, in fact, among the community, where, you know...
If you don't have the bloody destruction of the second temple, then you wouldn't have a wailing wall and you wouldn't have a shrine.
Is there an almost desire to go there?
A desire to make things worse?
To experience catastrophe and suffering?
And it's obviously something that would be unconscious.
Yeah, go on.
I've kind of said my piece on this.
Go on, Mark.
Well, yeah, I mean, I think that the answer might be, I mean, there is a kind of cyclical aspect to Jewish history, and I would make the argument that that's sort of encoded into their stories and religion and so forth.
You know, at some point, there will be an exodus, and they'll leave Egypt having plundered the Egyptians.
And so forth.
And this is not necessarily a bad thing.
It's just part of the migratory life of the Jew, as it were.
So they'll either expel or be expelled or flee and so forth.
But I think that part of that cycle, though, is that their will to power is basically the promotion of egalitarianism.
So as they're rising, they'll be promoting things like free speech.
And the liberation of the lower classes and so forth, because they see that tied to their own interests.
But once they attain sort of the heights of power, they'll oppose those things, right?
But they've already set in motion all this cultural interest or love or affection for things like egalitarianism, freedom of speech and so forth.
That end up, you know, sort of biting them in the ass, as it were, because they're no longer in favor of those things, because to be in favor of those things is disruptive to their hold on power, essentially.
But previously, they were using those things to disrupt, you know, the Gentile sort of stranglehold on power, whether it's the...
It was the elite wasps in America or the aristocracy in Europe and so forth, right?
Yeah. So I think that that's kind of the answer.
You know, it's the serpent that eats its own tail.
The will to power is necessarily one of leveling.
But once you're in power, you know, the sort of leveling forces, these democratic forces, become your adversary.
And I think really it's just...
The answer is that it's cyclical, that they, again, their will to power is also their undoing.
You know, we have that expression, to live by the sword is to die by the sword.
You know, so maybe some similar aphorism can be developed as it pertains to Jews.
You know, to live by the egalitarian creed is to die by the egalitarian creed and so forth, right?
I'm sure a better aphorism can be developed than that.
But I think that that's what's going on.
And they've created, they've been very influential in the creation, I should correct myself, of this kind of egalitarian climate, this sort of democratized, egalitarian, multicultural climate.
They've played an important hand in fostering that.
And now they're kind of, you know, reaping the whirlwind.
I think that that's basically the answer, you know, and that it is cyclical, that a Jewish will to power in Jewish history in general is cyclical because of the need to, you know, the need to undermine the very things that would ultimately support them once they ascend to a position of power.
▲
Export Selection