The emergence of a new mutation of anti-Semitism in the West (e.g. Norway) is part of an “anti” trend that differs in several ways from its historic precedents.

It is with the foreboding of a calamity being invited to reoccur that minor occurrences can be registered whose totality reminds of past events. The disaster of the past as a possible scenario for the future has its roots in an attempt to blame the world’s ills on a scapegoat. Often most of those who did not subscribe to the guilt of the accused were, when pressured, willing to sacrifice entire categories of their co-nationals in the irrational hope of being left alone themselves. And so the fire of the match lit the stake. Inevitably its flame set the neighborhood afire.

Today “anti-movements” are producing signs of a repeat performance and occur with increasing frequency. The “Antis” who produce these verbal manifestations – the time of deeds has not yet dawned – feel increasingly uninhibited to express them. Sharing their position is more and more assumed to be “self-evident”. Accordingly, it is becoming fit to be expressed in circles that regard themselves as civilized. So much so, that those who do not go along are, to a growing extent, forced apologetically to “out” themselves as eccentrics. Doing this poses a dilemma, as speaking up is becoming inappropriate because it spoils the cozy harmony of the party. Meanwhile, keeping silent is more than cowardly: it is stupid. A case in point is an incident that alerted me to the trend. The occasion: a meal at the place of a relation-by-marriage who does not follow the news. A dish earns praise. The host reveals that, unfortunately, the fruit in it is from Israel. They tried to get it from elsewhere but the small local store’s limited offerings left no alternative.

History has been a generous teacher: it has produced plenty of anti-movements. From the Albigensians through the Jews, Gypsies and Magyars, to the Korean merchant and the Pakistani mechanic, as well as the “class enemy,” mark the path with fitting cases. One common element is that someone’s disadvantage is connected to the existence of an objectively often indefinable, but subjectively precisely branded, group. Its members are “aliens” by some criterion. This non-belonging is the quality which makes them work consciously to the detriment of those who are not bound to by shared identity. This makes all who belong to the described category of people an enemy. Combating this foe for the sake of the survival of its victims is inescapable. In this clash any means is allowed as all members of the group are, by their belonging – and not by their individual actions – guilty. This guilt demands atonement and makes chastisement a moral deed. The nature of the harm emanating from such a group is such that it can not be neutralized by morally restraining the perpetrator. The only effective defense is to destroy the offender. It is at this juncture that the relationship between the “Anti” movement and conflict within the state system emerges. Those who invent an enemy to annihilate within will be quick to discover an analogous need to proceed against a foe from without. 

If it is correct to detect a reemergence of a new mutation of anti-Semitism in the West then, it is now part of an “anti” trend that differs in several ways from its historic precedents. One of the differences is the form of the rejection. The Nazis’ overt and active racial anti-Semitism is a taboo. To engage in it you must yourself be able to claim victim status as member of a “race” worthy of protection (Palestinians) or be far-Left. The latter category excuses all said and done on account of a convenient conclusion drawn from that phase of WWII, when Stalin and Hitler finally became enemies. So as to avoid the stamp “crude” the world “Jew” needs to be replaced with “Israel” and “Zionist.” Second, those sharing the new Anti movement’s concerns do not feel economically exploited by the local “Jews” and do not fear the loss of social status that is, downward social mobility. Third, the Antis here are not rallying to direct action which is left to others. Lastly, the trigger of antagonism is not the alien within the walls but the fear of forces that are located “outside.” It is through the “Zionists” and their US support that a transmission belt comes about which is said to bring near and to provoke the otherwise avoidable wrath of local and alien radical Islamists.

It is these latter factors that require elaboration. Socialism in Europe, whether under its own label or as a virus embedded in another party, has created the impression that a perfect society is possible. In its gist, this version of the ideal provides total security. One aspect is economic security – a guaranteed comfortable subsistence regardless of input. It is paired with “equality,” implying rewards detached from those market forces that measure the value of societal contributions. Liberation from the threat of assessment by impartial forces is closely linked to protection from the negative consequences of individual actions; these are re-cast to become the responsibility of the community. Here income-related rewards are – since we are all equals – detached from individual striving, ability and the risks taken. The “return” for misdeeds are – in the context of an unconditionally forgiving “understanding” – also separated from individual responsibility. Finally, this mental state that makes crime relative, cuts the umbilical cord between actions and their consequences. Therefore a heaven for all is promised. It unfolds in the assumed relationship of not only the individual, his society and the state, but also carries over into what pertains to the relationship between states and the ideas that mobilize them.

The next step is logical for folks who at home know no criminals, only misguided victims of “our society’s” inadequacies. In the international arena, too, there can be no problem beyond healing by applying incense, incantations and monetary grants. This expected world of bliss is threatened by the reality of conflicts. One is between the rich and the poor. Dozens of millions have risen –mainly in east Asia – from poverty by participating in the economy of the modern world. (Ohmygod! is it ok to call it “globalized”?) Their case teaches a valuable lesson for overcoming poverty by participation. However, according to the posture taken by the beautiful people that can afford to defy reality, the successful become the guilty. This notion forces the believers to summon an ideology to help. One that sees to it that equality is provided by punishing those who have become unequal by rising to the level of their ability and ambition. With that, what could have served as an inspiration transmutes into a blemish that the successful carry. The moral paragons become those who promise to maintain conditions in which the good life is not the consequence of lifting oneself up, but of the redistribution of what the better-than-average have created. (Naturally, only as long as the loot lasts.)

The chique people who commiserate with the downtrodden might be more interested to organize benefit events that buy their way into being left alone than they are in solving problems. To a significant minority in the developed countries “democracy” has increasingly attained the association that one is, as a right, free of competition, challenges and threats. If these still arise then it is due to a corrigible slip-up. The last irrepressible conflict between principles ended with the last world war. Fighting Communism after ’45 has, accordingly, received less than lukewarm support from the intellectuals of the West and those who craved membership among the select. The problem with a doctrinal world view in which all conflicts can be solved by a compromise is two-fold. First of all, problems can not be overcome by redistributing what has already been achieved. Second, not all differences can be overcome by finding the truth “in the middle.” 2x2 = 4. If one party says “6” then the correct answer is not “5” – that being the middle ground between 4 and 6. The only mathematically correct, that is realistic answer is 4. It is, unmercifully exactly that, quite regardless of whether every pressure group and spokesman for “humankind” concurs or not.

The source of the new, fashionable and convenient consensus of the Antis emerging in the West is demanding non-involvement beyond giving alms and posturing as a “good person” in the pursuit of good PR. Many sharing our culture have come to the assumption that we can be liberated from everything that inconveniences us. We live nearly twice as long as our ancestors because their incurable maladies found a cure. In the winter we are kept warm – without having to chop wood and firing stoves before sunrise. To “compensate,” in the summer we are kept cool once we had returned from our private pool located in a desert. Without cranking, our cars start at the first attempt to propel us from the security of a gated community to stores that carry the fruits that are out of season. In the winter we can take a vacation in the sun and the summer is a good time to ski from a mountain whose peak is reached without exertion. And in College you have a right to a “B” no matter what. This freedom from nearly everything that involves hardship is spoiled by one thing only. It is the reality of an outside world whose hostile forces cannot be bought, parlayed into tolerance or directed at some other target. This is where the totalitarian challenge of our day enters the scene. It disturbs the pleasing picture – drawn from the outset in disregard of the facts. According to it wars are something “obsolete,” violence – including effective self-defense – solves no problems which “everybody” in the protected and well-heeled crowd knows.

To an extent that even our Sybarites can hardly deny, today two conflicts – out of several ignored ones – interfere with their “ersatz” reality. One is the war of Islam against the modern world. Specifically this entails the issues of the near East, respectively all that is associated with “Israel.” The second matter – it might actually be regarded as an aspect of the former topic – is that of nuclear proliferation with special attention to Iran’s ambitions. Now, both problems can and should be approached by diplomacy. However, one needs to be aware that the effectiveness of negotiation depends of the rationality of the “other side” and the visible physical means available for the case that persuasion fails. Especially the US’ official policy – regardless of whether you agree or disagree with its details – operates on the basis that certain scenarios are not negotiable. Briefly, radical Islamist violence will be met and a nuclear Iran is, given Tehran’s stated purpose, not acceptable. For what follows it is decisive that Israel’s national policy is closely related to this position. This is one of the reasons why globally the Antis are as anti-American as they are “anti-Zionist.” (Fear of modernization and of the new, global competition, of the challenge of an alien life-style by “Americanization,” are further contributory factors.)

The new Antis are, of course, not against Jews, only critical of the alleged excesses of hard-line Israeli Zionists because they are for the right of the Palestinian who would be peaceful if not provoked. The fault of American policy is that, being a captive of the Israeli lobby, it does not use leverage to force Jerusalem to the territorial concessions the result of which would be peace. The mine-fields implanted in this are dismissed as self-mending minor details. So are generally the problems raised by dealing with powers that view negotiation as a form of warfare, compromise as weakness, and agreements that fall short of their maximal demands as armistices – to be used as an improved position to rally from in the next round.

Wanting to be left alone, the coddled class is demanding, like Archimedes – albeit in the service of a worthy cause – “do not disturb my circles.”  The insistence is not new. The same demand to appease has already moved masses against NATO, missile defense, armament such as the deployment of Pershings, “Viet Nam,” resisting aggression in Korea and “dying for Danzig.” The same sentiment mired in wishful thinking had supported the Chamberlains and cursed the Churchills, Trumans, Meyers, Thatchers and Reagans. It has been the undeserved good fortune of those who wished to flee into the ultimately suicidical “compromise” with those pursuing total victory that they did not prevail in the past. To hinder them today is the burden of our era’s enlightened champions of freedom who see in liberty more than the unlimited right to “feel good” and immunity from service and sacrifice whenever the going gets tough.