Weekly Standard regrets Jewish mind-control technique losing effectiveness

I’d never heard of Jennifer Peto before, but if one can get a degree for stating the obvious, maybe I should go back to school and stack up a few more degrees.  The point of her thesis–that Holocaust memorialization is a propaganda tool that Jewish communities use to assert their moral superiority and manipulate their host nations–is the sort of thing that might easily have been said here at Throne and Altar.

Neocon magazine The Weekly Standard is appalled.  I do admit to being impressed to think that someone could say this with a straight face:

Jennifer Peto is dead wrong: Far from being the creation of sinister Jews who wanted to be regarded as victims rather than “white,” Holocaust education was to be a gift from the Jewish community to the world at large. European Jewry was destroyed, but its legacy would be a redemptive technique that was intended to prevent future genocides of others.

BahHaHaHaHaHaHa….Excuse me.  Won’t happen again.

The article later goes on to mention evidence that directly disproves the claim that Holocaust memorialization is meant to prevent other genocides:  the fact that the memorializers express outrage at the thought of any other genocide being remembered at all–particularly if it relates to the 100 million victims of communism.  They insist that the Jewish Holocaust is an utterly unique event.  Whatever it is that they are worried about preventing, none of the mass murders of gentiles in the past century particularly excites them.

The article’s main point, though, is that Holocaust memory is not working properly, because people have turned it against the Jews themselves, and are now accusing Israel of behaving in a fascist way towards the Palestinians.  Now, the Palestinians are such expert whiners (rather like the Jews), not to mention such enthusiastic killers, that it’s hard for me to work up much sympathy for them.  Still, I think this misses Peto’s point, and I’m sure it misses mine.  We’re not saying that Holocaust ideology exists to legitimize Israel.  We’re saying it exists to delegitimize gentile Western nations, cultures, and religions.  It exists to recast the healthy and natural intragroup solidarity and collective identity found in all peoples as an illigitimate expression of “hate” and “intolerance” when the group in question is Western and Christian.  (…because the Holocaust has taught us all about where “excluding” the “Other” leads…You know the line.)  And at this Holocaust ideology has been a brilliant success.  Jews may have a Jewish country, but an offficially Christian country would be intolerant.  Jews may discourage marriage outside their ethnic group, but for whites to do such a thing would be an outrage.  Attacking Judaism is anti-semitism; attacking Christianity is artistic freedom.  And on it goes, so deep in the European and American psyche that most of us fail to notice even the most obvious double standards.

UPDATE:

To be clear, I suppose I should emphasize that Holocaustism is not exclusively, or even primarily, driven by Jews qua Jews.  It’s the Left’s favorite stick for beating Western civilization.

9 Responses

  1. This essay put me in mind of several only tangentially related things. First, there should be a term, similar to “swimming the Tiber,” for rejecting neo-connery in favor of actual rightism. Which leads to, second, since I escaped their clutches, I find it very difficult to read neo-cons any more. And, third, I think it’s admirable that you bother to do so.

    The quote from Sam Schullman’s post is a great example . I find reading it (each of the quote and the post) utterly enervating. It’s boring. It’s so transparently delusional or dishonest that it’s hard to work up any desire at all to respond, either internally or externally. After all, it is unimaginable that the author could be “convinced” by any counterargument. It’s like Chuck Schumer arguing that the sky is pink in a Congressional committee meeting. What’s the point of even responding? So, bravo for bothering.

    I don’t know what it means to say “Holocaustism is not . . . driven by Jews qua Jews.” It sounds like something Larry Auster would say right before he explains how when he criticizes Jews it’s all good, but when anybody else does, it’s anti-semitism. If you are trying to claim that there is some significant fraction of Jews who don’t believe in the super-duper-extra-special uniqueness of the Holocaust, then I’m pretty sure you are wrong, and I wonder where you got such an odd idea.

  2. The sentences quoted from “The Weekly Standard” are actually quite revealing. The central redemptive event in the heilsgeschichte of historic Judaism is God’s rescuing of Israel from slavery and the oppression of Pharaoh in Egypt in the Exodus. This event is commemorated in Passover every year. In Christianity, the central redemptive event in our heilsgeschichte is Christ’s crucifixion, the true sacrifice which takes away the sins of the world, joined with the subsequent Resurrection. We commemorate Christ’s death and Resurrection in Good Friday and Easter every year, and His death every time we participate in the Eucharist. Christianity recognizes God’s redemption in the Exodus but we emphasize that the Atonement for sin in Christ’s death has superceded that event as the central event of redemptive history.

    The way the Holocaust is now taught in schools, media, and museums indicates that someone wishes to replace both the Exodus in Judaism and the Atonement in Christianity with the Holocaust. The way the Holocaust is presented resembles a mirror image of Peter Abelard’s moral influence theory of the Atonement. In Abelard’s theory, Christ’s death as the supreme act of obedience and submission is an influence which inspires those who believe in Christ to live virtuously. The Holocaust, on the other hand, is presented to us as a supreme act of evil, which so shocks our senses, as to inspire us to abandon “racism”, “bigotry”, “xenophobia”, etc.

    No orthodox Christian can accept the idea that the Holocaust has superceded Christ’s Atonement. Nor, one would think, would orthodox Jews be comfortable with the Passover and Exodus being replaced by the Holocaust. Academic rabbi Jacob Neusner has in fact criticized the way Auschwitz has replaced Sinai. In this sense, which bears no necessary relationship to the sense the expression ordinarily conveys, the orthodox Christian and the orthodox Jew alike, must be “Holocaust deniers”. Not to deny the redemptive significance currently attached to the Holocaust is to deny our own faith.

  3. Hi Bill,

    No, I expect that petty much all the Jews are on board with Holocaustism. What I meant was that we shouldn’t completely reduce this to ethnic self-interest; there is also the ideology of liberalism at work, which allows the Jews to justify their hatred for Christendom on general principle. Quite a few gentiles are pushing Holocaust memorialization as well.

  4. Hello Mr. Neal,

    This is an important point. I have long thought that the Holocaust has become a sort of legitimating myth that grounds the European Union. Sociologically, it is the parallel of Christ’s atonement and resurrection, the legitimating myth of Christian civilization. (Of course, by “myth” I don’t mean to indicate doubt that either event actually happened. Only that they are stories that a people use to explain themselves to themselves.)

  5. Gotcha. Agree.

  6. The fact that so many European countries have laws against “holocaust denial” now, as does the European Union itself, indicates that a new religion has been established in Europe and that heresy against the official doctrines of that new religion will not be tolerated.

  7. […] Some of the points made here are also made by Gerry Neal in the comments of this post.  Be sure to check out his own blog “Throne, Altar, Liberty“, by the way.  It’s […]

  8. The Weekly Standard article actually indirectly defends nationalism – “respectable” (=leftwing) Western anti-Zionism is generally the province of EUcrats and Euro-elites who hate Israel because she proves that without nation-states, there is no self-government. Read it – it’s more subtle than your excerpt indicates.

  9. Professor Alain Finkielkraut, the French Jewish writer, has made precisely this point. He observes that “European unity is constructed around a series of ‘never agains.’ No more war, nor power, nor empire, nor nationalism. Progressive Europe has disavowed its embarrassing past. This makes it ill at ease with a state, Israel, that clings to its borders just as Europe renounces its own, that nurtures its army just as Europe demilitarizes, and that must combat implacable enemies just as Europe denies such things exist.”

    Not surprisingly, he has been denounced by 40 of his fellow-academics at l’École polytechnique.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: